Who needs identity politics?

Alas, dear friends, it is late in the night and I’m buggered if I can recall what trail of sorry links lead me to the posts upon which I am to unleash my wrath.

It’s yet another spin-off of the cultural clusterfuck that is Nationhood Speech Der Zweite; specifically, the response by Chris Trotter entitled “The Liberal Left: Who Needs You?” Our special surprise guest is a commenter going by the name of John Pagani, apparently an adviser to The Speechmaker Himself, assuming anyone is honest about their identities on the interwebz these days (she says, writing under a pseudonym).

First things first, there’s the casual dismissal of all and sundry who thought that maybe explicitly modelling a speech after the Don Brash/Orewa mold might not be entirely kosher:

Their reflexive condemnation of anyone who dares to hold Maori politicians to the same standards as Pakeha betrays an arrogant unwillingness to accept the ethical norms of their own society. These people have become the fervent champions of an indigenous culture they can never truly join because, fundamentally, they despise their own.

On the “same standard” bollocks, see my previous post.  Idiot/Savant notes well in the comments,

Be honest, Chris. The word you’re looking for is “self-hating Pakeha”. Or maybe “race-traitor”.

Disclaimer: I am so white it’s ridiculous.  I don’t say I’m “proud to be white” because HOLY CRAP with the instant supremacist associations.  Also, you know, taking pride in the identity of an ethnicity which has categorically dumped on basically every other ethnicity over the past several centuries?  Not so much my thing.

But I am white.  My cultural points of reference are white and Western and English-speaking.  And there’s a big fucking difference between acknowledging that white people have seriously fucked up on the race relations/not committing genocide front and “despising [my] own [culture].”

But I guess it makes it much easier to ignore people’s objections when you can say “oh they just suffer from too much liberal white guilt” – and when you’re happy to forget the fact that we have quite a bit to be guilty about.  Throwing in that whole “too arrogant to accept basic ethics” line is a nice touch, too.

Fuck that, though, I’ve covered it already – point is, Chris Trotter is my least favourite kind of leftie: the one who thinks being a leftie makes him automatically open-minded and understanding of privilege and power dynamics and oppression, but clings happily to the notion that every single bad thing in the world comes down to nothing more than class.

Side note: Trotter responds to I/S’ comment with:

If the cap fits,Comrade …

GET IT, GUYS, HE’S A TOTAL LEFTIE BECAUSE HE CALLS PEOPLE COMRADE, WHY DON’T YOU WORSHIP AT THE FEET OF HIS MARXIST CREDENTIALS.

Anyway, point is:  identity politics.  Ah, yes, those trifling matters that get in the way of real class struggle.  Can’t think why “objects to “identity politics”" is a phrase instantly associated in my mind with white heterosexual males who happen to have a few leftwing ideas, but oh well …

Along with hassling the ZOMG LIBERAL LEFT for having no power or influence “beyond the blogosphere” (whereas Chris totes has influence ’cause they wheel him out to sing The Red Flag on election nights for a laugh) there’s a few nice jabs at we Liberal Lefties:

Those faint-hearted liberals who can’t stand the heat should get out of the kitchen.

…

They have no understanding of, nor empathy for, the hopes and fears of ordinary people.

…

The truth of the matter is, liberal leftists have been preaching to themselves for so long they no longer appreciate how few people give a tinker’s cuss what they say.

And then there’s allegedly-John-Pagani in the comments:

It’s about connecting with things that matter to people and making politics work for people, instead of instructing people in what’s good for them and inventing fabrications about the people the left represents.

And that’s frankly where I get right fucking pissed off.

Because apparently, the Liberal Left just don’t understand ordinary people.  We don’t care about things that matter to people, we just want to instruct them because we’re bossy britches.  Fuck, I’m stunned no one managed to insert a nanny/evil headmistress/other authoritarian-woman-figure-who-kills-our-fun-but-is-not-a-Helen-Clark-reference-AT-ALL into the discourse.

Why is the second “people” in both italics and bold up there?  Because when two guys get in a huddle and start slanging against the Liberal Left and the evil distraction of identity politics, and whinge about how we need to think about ordinary people, I think we can make a few very good guesses as to the kind of people they’re talking about.

And I’ll give you a hint:  it ain’t you or me, assuming you are not a middle class white heterosexual cisgendered currently able bodied male.

Because here’s what matters to me:

It matters to me that I not be passed over for a job or a promotion because I’m a woman who’ll obviously just leave to have babies.

It matters to me that I have the right to be paid the same as a man for doing the same work.

It matters to me that gay men and women can have their relationships recognised by the state just like every two-in-three-chance-of-divorce hetero couple.

It matters to me that people of colour not get pulled over by the cops because brown people shouldn’t be driving expensive cars, or are obviously on drugs because they’re brown, or not be played by white people in movies about their lives.

It matters to me that people with disabilities can travel on aeroplanes, and get into buildings, and pass exams at school (look out for that incredibly-expletive-filled-post tomorrow!) and go shopping without worrying some bastard’s going to throw them out for having a hearing dog.

It matters to me that trans people shouldn’t have to worry about being murdered because someone else feels they have the right to judge what defines a man or a woman.

It matters to me that people should be able to practise their faith without fear of persecution, and that people not-of-faith should be able to say so without harassment.

But fuck all that! That’s just identity politics!  That’s just me assuming that the way people identify, the way society wants to identify them, the assumptions others feel free to make about you because of your identity or assumed identity, might actually affect people!  It might actually rate a bit higher on their List Of Things That Pissed Me Off Today:

1. Harassed on bus by guy who wouldn’t leave me alone.
2. First question asked at job interview: “Do you have kids?”
3. Threatened with sexual violence by blog commenter.
4. Still alienated from means of production.

Come on, guys, the big important thing is obviously class struggle!  We can’t possibly let the things that affect women and people of colour and people with disabilities and trans people and people who ignore the gender binary and people whose identities are not the default white het cis male – who, in fact, by being not-white-het-cis-males, actually have the audacity to have identities – get in the way of the greater good!

And if we have to throw Maori under the bus to achieve our [white het cis male] worker’s utopia, then so be it.

To borrow a line from the bikers’ rally at Parliament, I can only ask, though: who’s next?

Other reading:  No Right Turn, Lew at Kiwipolitico.

It’s sex, Jim, but not as we know it

Hoyden About Town has another post up in their depressingly-long-running series entitled “It’s not sex, it’s rape” – reporting the nigh-countless occurrences of sexual assaults being described as “having sex”.  Lauredhel includes a link to the fairly comprehensive and highly-recommended Pulling the Plug on Rape Culture One Word at a Time post at The Curvature:

What incorrectly using the word “sex” in cases of rape does is cast a shadow of doubt over the accusation.  The phrase “the defendant had sex with the woman” does indeed assume innocence for the defendant, but does not afford the alleged victim the same courtesy.  Her version of the events is entirely erased – and it also presents the “sex” as an objective fact, though the victim certainly might not view it as such. As far too many people don’t get, rape is not merely sex, but an act of violence – and this wording erases that as well.

Cara talks about how referring to things as “sex” and not “rape” implies consensuality, it implies that what occurred was just sex, not an act of violence – but on reflection, I realised there was a whole other, fairly grotesque, narrative in play.

To wit, that “had sex with a woman” may as well read as “had sex with a mobile vacuum tube“.

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.

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.

Cut off my reproductive rights and I’m cutting off yours

What I/S said.

Of course, the easiest way to let the pro-controlling-women’s-bodies crowd know that they are a dying people and we should let them pass would be to just have some clear, concrete legislation that throws out the whole “two certifying consultants” and their little bag of good-enough-reasons situation.  To just give women abortion on demand. To have better, comprehensive sex education so a shitload of unplanned pregnancies don’t happen in the first place.

Hell, then we might not even need to put folate in everyone’s bread! But this is clearly Crazy Talk and I am just a mere woman who cannot be trusted with her own damn body; besides, with a Government that happily aligns itself with the Nonsensical Sentencing Trust we shall probably have to consider ourselves lucky if the High Court simply upholds the status quo.

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.

Newsbites

Two articles of vague interest to the Dr Worth story:

Honest John plays strong hand, or How I learned to stop worrying and love my lack of journalistic integrity, by Richard Long.  Two tiny wee points:

For Mr Goff, this saga was a publicity godsend. A real live sex scandal so early in the term.

There seems to be some serious mileage being made out of the idea that it is totally plausible that a politician honouring a person’s confidentiality and taking things to the PM privately is just a cunning tactic to make the PM look even worse.

Perhaps in these fragile economic times, tinfoil stocks are looking surprisingly healthy?

And seriously, Richard, like many other rightwing trolls, it appears you haven’t been informed that Helen Clark isn’t even in the country any more:

We can all recall occasions when Opposition leaders have had to demean themselves to make the news bulletins… Miss Clark, at the margin of error level in the opinion polls, once leaped from a river bank on to inflated rubber tubes and was pictured at impact, legs splayed. Thank goodness she was wearing a wetsuit.

It’s Ms, and it’s a bit rich for a journalist to be complaining about the media’s choice of photograph, and the total obliviousness to just how much it says about Richard Long’s attitude to women that he has to find a sexually-implying phrase to describe her position is at once staggering and hilarious.  Yes, Richard, we get it, if she hadn’t been wearing a wetsuit one might have seen her naughty bits and you’re a proper red-blooded man who shies from such things and anyway she’s ugly, amirite?

Actress in stalker crossbow attack horror:  *Callousness Alert* Tonight, Simon, I’m going to be playing every idiot troll commenter of the last week:

The man had been sending Casanovas love letters and confronted her after her performance in Night of the Iguana.

WHY DIDN’T SHE JUST TELL HIM TO STOP? GEEZ. HE OBVIOUSLY WOULDN’T HAVE KEPT SENDING HER LETTERS UNLESS HE HAD SOME ENCOURAGEMENT, GOD.

He attacked her after she told him she wanted nothing to do with him.

*crickets*

And no, obvious commenters, no I am not saying Richard Worth is a potentially violent stalker. And no, I’m not equating text messages with a physical attack.  And no, “normal harmless guy” and “violent stalker” are, tragically, not mutually-exclusive always-identifiable-in-advance only-options-available.  Not that you care, yes?

Honest John plays strong handHonest John

Fight for your right to be called a harpy and STILL get harassed

Over at The Standard, the “how should Worth’s alleged victim(s) have reacted?” debate continues with everyone’s favourite psychic, Cactus Kate.

The case as given by CK and others is that if a woman doesn’t* instantly and firmly react to all and any inappropriate behaviour with a strident “YOU CAN’T AFFORD ME, SWEETHEART, BACK OFF”** well then she has no one to blame but herself.

They then go on to say that, therefore, that all people like me who defend Witness A and attack Worth’s alleged behaviour are the real misogynists, because we think women are passive victims who can’t stand up for themselves.

Which is fantastically logical for people living in a world where sexual harassment goes along the following lines:

1. Strange man approaches woman
2. Strange man says “Hey, I’d like to hire you, maybe in return you could suck my cock?”
3. Woman “stands up for herself”.
4. Strange man immediately ceases all inappropriate behaviour.

Unfortunately, human interaction only ever goes like that in the movies and the inside of Cactus Kate’s head.  But then, she also thinks people having coffee with a Minister of the Crown to discuss potential job opportunities should take a friend in case things turn nasty, and that victims of sexual harassment are suspect if they keep records – just like the Human Rights Commission advises them to.

I’d like everyone to please consider this: you’re at a cafe in Sylvia Park.***  Over at another table you see a well-dressed older man having coffee with a woman.  You may even recognise this man as a former partner at Simpson Grierson Law, or as the Member of Parliament for Epsom, or as the Associate Minister for Justice.

Suddenly, the woman bolts to her feet and declaims, “HOW DARE YOU OFFER ME EMPLOYMENT IN THIS CRUMMY CAFE, SIR!  DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN!” and storms out.

Now, how many of you are going to think, “What a fracking weirdo!” and how many of you are seriously going to think “You go girl, stand up for yourself to that pillar of the community offering you employment in a public space!”

Because that’s how it starts.  A working lunch.  A celebratory drink after work on a Friday.  An email asking how your weekend went.  And here’s the deal, folks.  If you’re going to argue, “Oh no, she didn’t need to rebuff him then, I meant later on when things got inappropriate” you fail.  There is no clear line between “professional meeting with utterly no sexual intentions whatsoever no sirree” and “oh, now I’m sexually harassing you.”  If we’re going to accept Cactus Kate’s theorem that women should Stand Up For Themselves, it’s got to be right from the get-go.

It’s got to mean shooting down every man who wants to get you a coffee after you’ve done him a favour.  It’s got to mean even bluntly refusing to do a coworker or superior a favour in the first place.  It means never letting a guy be nice to you, never letting a guy buy you flowers on your birthday or after a big project winds up or when a close relative dies, because if you won’t say fuck no get away from me I have no sexual interest in you whatsoever at the slightest provocation, well, how is he meant to get the message?

Because after that first step – which to you is just coffee or flowers or a pat on the back – your lack of strident strong-independent-woman smackdown is  giving him the wrong impression.

But hey, when you can’t get hired because you’ve developed a reputation as an insane overreacting bitch who can’t take a compliment without thinking it’s a come-on**** and you’re still getting dirty texts from your ex-boss because entitled harassing fucks will keep stalking you no matter how often you say no, be comforted with the fact that you stood up for yourself and you’ve made Cactus Kate proud.

*As she assumes Witness A didn’t.
**Which doesn’t feed into notions of women as commodities at all.
***Even though this makes you automatically trash.
****And because I know there are people itching to derail this, no. I do not think such reputations are good or deserved.  I just also acknowledge the reality of society’s reactions to anything a woman does – blame her.

I’m an equal-opportunity victim-blamer-hater

First things first, though, the XIIIth Down Under Feminists’ Carnival is up at SAHM Feminist. Awesome work, Azlemed!

Now, I must admit, I was probably asking for it when I agreed with Cactus Kate on something.  But I could hardly have expected the Universe to respond with the best most mindboggling piece of victim-blaming I’ve seen in a while.

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.