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?

Quickhit: QoT <3 NRT 4 eva

After a crappy day full of news about the exciting new ways National/Act are fucking up my country, it’s nice to know there’s a blogger out there who will actually bother to check out the proportion of Parliament’s time spent in urgency this term vs. last term.

Have a fun Labour Weekend, people.

She was lying there with her inbox open and her cellphone pulled up

The Richard Worth resignation/investigation has been fairly comprehensively covered by other Kiwi blogfiends.

And the victim-blaming has begun.

I don’t think the e-mails were actually illegal. Also, I would expect that this woman would have sent a fairly clear and direct response back to Worth when the first e-mail was received. Is there any indication that this actually happened? Otherwise there could be the suggestion that the woman was leading him on for the purpose making some political capital out of it.

Afterall, the behaviour, although disgusting, is not technically illegal, especially if Worth had reason to believe she was a willing party.

We need some sexual-harassment bingo boards, STAT!

First bold: “If the victim didn’t behave in exactly the manner I suggest a victim should have behaved in, she’s obviously not a real victim because she’s not fulfilling the role”.  See also the eternal if you cry you’re hysterical and unreliable, if you’re calm you clearly weren’t really raped dilemma.

I have been sexually harassed at work, and I have had unwelcome come-ons socially. And every time, I have kicked myself afterwards for not reacting the Right Way.  For defaulting to “shocked disbelief, unable to form coherent sentence” or “just be super-polite and hope he just goes away, girl” or “laugh nervously because brain is still processing godawful comment”.

According to tsmithfield and doubtless many, many others, you know what? I have nothing to complain about if my harasser then continues in his unwanted behaviour.  Because I didn’t react the Right Way.  Because power dynamics in work and political relationships don’t exist, because there’s no societal pressure especially on women to be polite and not come across as catty bitches.  Because all sexual harassers go straight to “would you like to fuck me in return for a sweet promotion” rather than starting so small, so just-this-side-of-weird that you question whether they’re really being skeezy or if you’re just overreacting, silly girl.

Bolding the second: “The victim isn’t a Logical Victim of the harasser, so there must be Something Else Going On.”  Because her failure to respond to the very first “Hey how’s it going” email with “STAY AWAY, HARASSING PIGFUCKER” must mean she has some ulterior motive.  Normally, we’d be going for she was flattered by his attention but because this is politics so God forbid we pass up the opportunity to insinuate some nasty conspiracy.  And of course, there’s no feeding into classics like “women using their sex appeal to lead Good Men astray” happening here at all.  Hell, it’s probably worse if she were doing it for political purposes rather than securing a designer-brand-furnishing sugar daddy like good strumpets do.

Bold part III, revenge of the bold: Just as we all know that being too drunk to form multisyllabic words is exactly the same as a signed affidavit affirming “I would like to engage in sexual intercourse with you right now”, it is also true, kiddies, that if you are polite, if you try to continue engaging on a purely professional level, if you redirect a person’s email address straight to your spam folder, if you God forbid try not to piss off someone with significant clout and thus stop short of rigging a Running Man necklace that will explode if they come within a hundred metres of you, your harasser is fully able to believe you are a willing participant.

The fact that all of this comes after the same commenter tries to argue that totally professional and un-sleazy emails could just have been, like, misinterpreted by someone with an axe to grind does nothing to improve my mood.  Dude, if you are sending ambiguous emails to coworkers which they could be reading in a “let’s go fuck now” sense, you’re really bad at writing emails.  And relying on “well, we just have to accept what the sender intended!” as a defence is just a wee bit sad.

But then, tsmithfield strikes me as the kind of person who’d say “I’m sorry you were offended” in all sincerity.

ETA: Let it be known that I love Mary Wilson of Radio New Zealand and wish to construct a small cathedral in her honour.

In other random news: I have to agree with Cactus Kate on this one.  Sorry, Shane-in-the-comment-above, the Herald is a lying, lying liar.  My sinuses are fucked as a general rule so add a headcold to that and I am screaming for the sweet sweet relief of pseudoephedrine, because nothing else allows me to feel vaguely human.

“Rape, not sex” watch: Oh look, yet another journo is capable of using the r-word.  Seems all a woman has to do is be in broad daylight* OR provably unconscious and suddenly, hey, it’s actual rape, not “took advantage of” or “began a sexual relationship with the prepubescent child”.

*And that’s still questionable; plenty of thoroughly-witnessed attacks still fail the victim-blaming game in the media.  I am by NO means interested to check out the complexion and dress sense of the accused in that one, no sirree.

Some recommended reading

Too damn cold to get a good rage up, so some good posts by others:

Your boobs are someone else’s intellectual property at The Hand Mirror.

Tony Veitch police file released – because, you know, he just snapped and it was totally a one-off mistake and abuse isn’t escalating and long term and isn’t the Granny Herald glad now it ran that bullshit story about “ZOMG they’re charging Our Hero with throwing a glass of water, how TRIVIAL”?

Robbing public transport to pay for roads by Russel Norman over at frogblog. Because Steven Joyce is too stupid to understand that the reason Aucklanders poll in favour of public transport but still use cars is because current Auckland public transport is shit and maybe they’d use it if it got some actual investment oh no there I go being logical again.

And Eddie at The Standard basically sums up my feelings on “Punch in the face” dad guilty. Don’t even get me started on the idiot “commentator” on Sunrise this morning who, in response to Ella Henry’s comments about previous horsewhip/electric cord cases said obliviously, “But they got convicted, didn’t they?” NO YOU MORON, THAT’S WHY THE LAW HAD TO BE CHANGED, FUCKING HELL. I would lament that someone that uninformed is being paid to “comment” on issues of the day, but it’s probably part of some masterful Sunrise plan to plumb Henry-esque depths of stupid in an attempt to steal Breakfast viewers.

Oh, they’re not even TRYING

Word to the clearly un-wise: writing up and distributing a list of phrases people aren’t allowed to use is the easiest way imaginable to expose what fraudulent wanks you are.

Standing in the middle of Lambton Quay, stark naked, with the words “I WANT TO FUCK THE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM IN A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE PLACE” would have been a subtler approach.

But actually spelling out, “don’t say advocacy. Don’t say inequalities. Do say value-for-money health” is pre-school-level stuff.

Who the hell does this? Yes, you want to rebrand things. Yes, you want a clear message and uniform tone across your organisation or Ministry’s communications. But the kind of moronic comms advisor who actually says “let’s tell people they can’t use the phrase “public health” any more” SHOULD BE TAKEN BEHIND THE CHEMICAL SHEDS AND SHOT AT DAWN.

What’s depressing is that this is just par for the fucking course with this Government.

Hat tip: The Standard.

Action! Pay Equity Faxathon at The Hand Mirror

The lovely bloggers of The Hand Mirror are organising a Pay Equity Faxathon on March 6th. Arm your fax machines, proud Kiwis, and let Tony “fuck women social workers, we’re in a RECESSION, people!!!” Ryall know how you feel about dicking over women workers.

For those of us sans fax machines, there’s also a handy Facebook group, where some obliging idiots have chosen to again demonstrate the lovely tendency of certain sectors of society* to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that what’s really happening is we silly bints aren’t willing to just work as hard as men. I direct you fuckers to the comments of Andrew fucking Talley – you know, that dude who did deliberately pay women less than men for the same level of work. You chaps should get along just fine.

And of course, there’s always the mail – and if there’s one fact I think isn’t publicized enough to Da Yoof, it’s that postage to those bastards in Parliament is free of charge.

The Hand Mirror’s Pay Equity Hub is a great resource, and not just because they say nice things about me.

*White, middle-class men, I am looking at you.

Sorry, girlfolk, your equality is getting in the way of my ideology

Also over at No Right Turn, and no doubt other places I haven’t checked yet in my evening’s blog-reading!  From the Granny Herald:

The Government has axed two investigations aimed at improving the pay of women as it tries to save money by controlling public sector salaries.

The inquiries were aimed at female social workers at Child, Youth and Family, who are paid 9.5 per cent less than their male colleagues, and at inequities in the pay of mainly female school support workers.

Ooooooooooooh boy.  I’m definitely going to be breaking open a beer after this one.

Mmm, delicious linear time

This comment over at The Standard cites one of my favourite (or, really, least-favourite) bits of political bullshit often parroted in this country (and sorry, Standardites, it ain’t the one about y’all being a Machiavellian Secret Labour Party Front, that’s just lol-tastic).

It’s the, “Well you’ve had nine years to do suchandsuch, and you haven’t!” line, which gets brought up, almost invariably, any time the Labour Party have announced a radical new (and, let’s face it, vote-attracting) policy. Like universal student allowances, or tax cuts (and GOD did we hear it constantly when Cullen finally rolled them out).

And it’s always pissed me off, but I had a hard time explaining exactly why.  Last week? Lightning bolt!

Thought experiment

Already thoroughly covered by Tane at The Standard and Russell Brown at Public Address: Stephen Franks’ comments, repeated multiple times, recorded on multiple occasions, that his opposition to gay marriage is at least somewhat grounded in the idea that “just because I love my dog doesn’t mean I should be able to marry it“; and the complaints, at this latest reporting of it, that he is being “taken out of context”.

Just one question.

Exactly what context could possibly exist to make “marrying a human of the same sex = marrying an animal” not offensive?