Tagged: abuse

Several interesting things

1.  Jordan Carter and Scott Yorke both post about Trevor Mallard’s historic “Tinkerbell” comments, targeting Stephen Wittington, ACT candidate, and David Farrar, National pollster, for raising said comments following the announcement of Labour’s policy on same-sex adoption.

2. Apparently neither Jordan nor Scott read No Right Turn, which is a shame.  Or it might have just got in the way of the “this is a nasty rightwing plot against us” meme.

3.  Jordan thinks the big issue is that we must be very clear that Trevor Mallard isn’t a homophobe.  He just says homophobic things, which is … better, and also completely different.

4.  Scott thinks the big issue is that National are full of homophobes anyway so stop paying attention to Labour’s.  I am possibly coincidentally reminded of when a few of the secondary school teachers in my family pondered voting National in the early 00s, on the basis that “at least we expect to get fucked over under National”.

Moral of the story?  Firstly, as I said on Jordan’s blog, in a country with NZ’s suicide rate amongst queer youth, I have no time for “but just saying a homophobic thing doesn’t make a person A Homophobe” hair-splitting.

Secondly, when an outspoken, openly gay MP like Grant Robertson is reduced to saying of a senior MP, and of a homophobic attack against one of his colleagues, “It’s a silly statement“, when you’ve already had another MP’s homophobia defended because Oh Well Those West Coast Rednecks Will Like It, when it takes two fucking years for someone to admit calling a gay man “Tinkerbell” was “probably unfortunate” but oh, oh, he’s totally not homophobic?  I feel quite happy assuming Labour has a serious problem with homophobia.

Alternatively, I suppose one could argue that it’s just a context-free political ploy to unsettle Finlayson, they would’ve called him Four-Eyes if he weren’t gay … but if you’re seriously happy with your political party playing off other people’s homophobia and a culture of queer-bashing for their own gain and still want to defend them, hey, you go right ahead, I’ll be over here with the people who have basic ethics.

And yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees, Scott, National are probably 1,367 times as homophobic as Labour so why am I trying to destroy the Left again???????  But you know what, when it comes to the left, I expect more.

Oh, well he’s funny, that makes up for sexually abusing a four-year-old

The sentence is in on the anon Kiwi comedian accused of sexually assaulting his partner’s daughter.

Oh, did I say sentence?  Because there isn’t one, because he’s just suffered so much already and we all need more laughter in our lives.

Basically, FUCK YOU, JUDGE CUNNINGHAM.  Officially Scum, that’s what you are.  You’ve even made me fucking agree with Garth McVicar and there’s no going back from that shit.

LudditeJourno has more.  Big trigger warning for child sexual abuse and abuse apologism.

Bonus fuck-you: to whatever tragic sick fuck at stuff.co.nz entitled the article “Talent helps comedian get off sex act charge”.  I realise y’all at Stuff are scum-sucking bottom-feeders desperate for pageviews, but you’re seriously going to Hell for that one.

Family Fist: Poor brown people are obviously just more evil

Well, that’s my take on this piece of dogwhistling, anyway.

Oh, sure, it sounds nice and reasonable.  We don’t want to waste Mah Taxpayer Dollars monitoring obviously good parents, right?

Until you think about how exactly you personally are defining “obviously good parents”, and perhaps figuring out that it might be the teensiest bit subjective.  And also really mostly based on stereotypes about poor brown people bashing their kids to death because they’re inherently primitive.

Really, let’s just consider this supposedly-eminently-sensible list of criteria from one-man-lobby-group Bob McCoskrie:

“How many times in abuse cases have we heard ‘the family was known to CYF’? It is families where there is family breakdown and instability, drug and alcohol abuse, low maternal age, mental illness, previous family violence – all the risk factors highlighted in reports over the past decade on child abuse – who we should be closely monitoring.”

Totally sensible.  But … you know what?  Every single item on that list applies to my family.  Divorces galore, alcoholism in spades, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, depression, anxiety, history of generational physical abuse …

All the risk factors.

But were we “known to CYFS”?  Did anyone think shit, here’s a family we need to keep an eye on, because there’s clearly some big issues which could result in severe harm?


The family home being located in one of the richer streets of Epsom, and the family complexion ranging from “pasty” to “lightly tanned”, maaaaaaaay just have something to do with that.

But I guess as soon as we start listing other “risk factors” like lack of access to education and housing and healthcare and jobs, we might have to start wondering if maybe we as part of the wider society have a tiny weensy hand in this whole deprivation/poverty thing.

And then we wouldn’t be able to create a police state around the specific groups of people who we don’t like.

Mother of all (Australasia-centric) SlutWalk roundups

Wellington SlutWalk is coming up on 25 June, and I’m going to be there.  But there’s a hell of a lot of different views out there on the SlutWalk phenomenon,and gosh darn it if I don’t think this is a damn good discussion for feminism to be having.

I don’t agree with all the perspectives linked and cannot vouch for the safety or non-triggering-ness of comments on other blogs.  It’s also going to be pretty Southern-Hemisphere-centric!

New posts added at the top:

The stupid, it burns at news with nipples (whom I give major points for persisting with a “I’m not blaming the victim, I’m just saying your short skirt will get you raped” commenter)

An Open Challenge to mainstream media re SlutWalk Sydney at Hoyden About Town

In Defence of SlutWalk at Versatile Identities

SlutWalk: A testimony by a transgendered man

Brief Thoughts at iced-chai

Octavia Spitfire – Walk don’t walk – how we remain BFFs is beyond me for clearly we girlish harpies cannot handle disagreement or divergence from the hivemind.

Kiwiana (one of the Slutwalk Aotearoa organising crew!) on SlutWalk Aotearoa and victim-blaming

News With Nipples on “personal responsibility” and what effect SlutWalk could have

Racialicious – To March or Not To March

Clem Bastow (a Melbourne SlutWalk organiser) in The Age – Hey girls, we’re all sluts now

Karen Pickering, another Melbourne organiser, on Crikey

Another View at The Angry Black Woman (Muslim WOC perspective)

LudditeJourno – However we dress, wherever we go

Crunk Feminist Collective: Slut Walks vs Ho Strolls

A link round-up at Feminist Frequency (critical)

Small round-up at the Institute of Feminist Legal Studies (mixed)

Related but not directly on topic:  Chally asks Are We Really Going To Do This? (see also Part 2)

Post your own links in comments!  I’m sure I’ve forgotten some utter corkers of posts!

Next up on Ideologically Impure:  my own view on the whole damn thing!

Pregnant teens deserve privacy and the SST needs a remedial journalism class

As a friend tweeted, remember the time I got trashed because abortion was a dead issue and no one really cared about it and our laws weren’t going to change any time soon so why didn’t I get back into the kitchen where I belonged?

Oh look.

Now it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Judith Collins thinks young pregnant people’s wishes are less important than enforcing their parents’ ownership rights, given her support of similar provisions during the 2004 Care of Children bill debate, nor that a finance minister of Catholic faith agrees.

But I have to give props to Dr Paul Hutchison for acknowledging, even in the most tempered terms, that this isn’t actually an automatic-moral-outrage issue:

We have to tread lightly, doing everything possible to have the parents involved. But having worked in places like National Women’s, where I saw women who had been beaten by their families because of an unknown pregnancy, that’s why the law is there

The alternative proposed, that young pregnant people should be able to see a judge in chambers within 24 hours, sounds fine and fucking dandy if you’ve got privilege shining out your ass.  What if the judge is an asshat and agrees with Collins and English that you should be forced to tell your parents unless you have written documentation to establish they’ll beat you?  What if the judge is a douchewad who believes in bullshit ideas like only “forcible” rape really counting??  What if you live in godforsaken Gore and the only judge willing to do teen abortion decisions is in fucking Rangiora but will only see you on a Wednesday? (Oh look, I’m drawing on the actual current abortion situation for some pregnant people).  What if your abusive parents demand to know where you’ve been?  I’m sure they’d react really well because obviously teenagers only refuse to tell their parents because they’re just “mental“.

What if we pass this retrograde bullshit and within two weeks the Sunday Star Fucktimes decides to run another panic-mongering article about School Counsellors Arranging Secret Judge Visits?

Because what this issue comes down to is some parents thinking they have every right to control every moment of their children’s lives.  The specific current story is about a parent who did find out and insists she would have been totally supportive of her child getting an abortion, but is outraged because she didn’t get to find out before the fact and because she didn’t get to exercise control in granting that “support”.

It is not about health.  It is not about supporting teenagers through a difficult time.  It is about control.   Scary, patriarchal control.

And Sunday Star-Times? Hire a fucking journalist with some basic ethics and numeracy, would you?  Because that shit scare-statistic at the bottom about How Many Teens Had Abortions!!! would be a lot less damaging to your rep as a publication with integrity if you noted that all the abortions performed on over-16-year-olds wouldn’t require parental consent under this shit law anyway.

Of course it would also make the Big Scary Number a lot smaller, and that would ruin the panic-mongering, wouldn’t it?

More awesome rage from Boganette.

Fuck rugby culture

[TW domestic abuse and rugby violence apologism]

My, has it really been 3 years since I last wrote about our fucking sick misogynist boys-will-be-boys violence-excusing rugby culture?

This time it’s Shaun Metcalf, whose soulful puppy-dog eyes probably helped him get his “second chance” at being on the Warriors team after a tragic mistake, an exuberance of youth, and terrible accident …

Oh wait, no.

In 2004 Shaun Metcalf was 16 and fucking a 15-year-old girl – possibly cheating on his “long-time partner” with whom he now has six-year-old twins – and when said 15-year old girl got pregnant, he and his mates responded really poorly, by, oh what was it?


Just, you know, average adolescent shit, boys-will-be-boys stuff.

But it’s okay, because let’s all forget Young Men Being Fucking Thugs Apologism 101:  “Let’s not let this terrible deliberate calculated assault mistake ruin a young man’s life!”

Cue everyone’s favourite “oh but they’re boys so they’re different” quote machine, Celia Lashlie!

‘We can all get caught up in the emotional image of young men booting a young woman in the stomach to cause her to abort her baby, but these were two young people … she got pregnant, he was way out of his depth, and he did a really cruel and dumb thing.

”He was caught in the moment, and what he did was the equivalent of a young man putting a noose around his neck because his girlfriend tossed him out. He has to be allowed to move forward and put his life together, and I think the ability of the NRL and the Warriors to take this young man in and help him do that is role modelling and something they should get credit for.”


“She” didn’t fucking get pregnant on her own, Celia, and it’s really awesome how your shitty sloppy language manages to buy into all kinds of tropes about evil bitches ruining men’s lives by having evil functioning uteri.

“Cruel and dumb”?  That’s one way of putting luring a woman into a situation so you and two of your mates can stomp on her stomach.

“Caught in the moment”?  Pretty long fucking moment, Celia, what with the calculated decision and the gathering of the bash-buddies and the luring of the victim and the stomping on her stomach in an assault specifically designed to induce miscarriage.

“Equivalent” of what the fuck now, Celia?  Shaun Metcalf didn’t try to commit fucking suicide, he deliberately set out to cause internal injuries to a woman he’d chosen to stick his dick into.

But hey, enough about Celia Lashlie’s blatant victim-blaming and abuse-apologism.

Because the fucking cherry on top is of course fucking rugby culture and our wonderful fucking wilful ignorance about the obvious fucking paradoxes involved.

NZRL chairman Selwyn Pearson said ”…What he did was disgusting and abhorrent but you don’t get life for murder, and I consulted a lot of experts who all said that the best thing for the boy in terms of his rehabilitation was to get back into sport.”

Point 1, Selwyn-of-the-vomitous-comments-which-I-haven’t-quoted-because-there-is-not-enough-fuck-in-the-world:  He’s not a fucking “boy”.  He’s 23.

Point 2.  Yeah, it’ll be fucking awesome for Shaun Metcalf to get “rehabilitated” by thugby culture.  He’ll apparently be surrounded by people who know that spousal abuse doesn’t have consequences for All Blacks, and rape charges are a great Women’s Day opportunity, and teaming up with your mates to violate a vulnerable woman is practically part of the job description, and will eternally be excused because “well she shouldn’t have …”

Gosh.  I can’t think why people might not be pleased to have this hero-worshipping bullshit crammed down kids’ throats

Hat tip to The Fundy Post; also covered by Sophia at In The Gateaux.


First antichoicer to imply it’s illogical for me to be outraged by assault against a pregnant woman because I’m prochoice is invited to suck it.  The rest of you can fuck right off.

Totally surprising things: Bob McCoskrie and DPF twist poll results to suit own/client’s wishes

The headline:

Two out of three support informed consent on abortion

DPF’s “surprised” comment:

I asked a couple of female friends what they thought, as I was puzzled that more women said they supported a law effectively making it more difficult to have an abortion.

The actual poll question?

“Would you support a law that would require a woman considering an abortion to first see a doctor, who is not an abortion provider, to be informed of the medical risks and alternatives to abortion?”

Hmm.  Something seems wrong with this picture.  TO THE SLUTCAVE!

Your first hint might be that Family First (who have followed the Kiwi Party’s cue in wheeling out a spokeswoman when convenient) immediately state this in their press release:

“Family First NZ is calling for a law which requires informed consent including ultrasound for all potential abortions, and counselling to be provided only by non-providers of abortion services. Parental notification of teenage pregnancy and abortion should happen automatically except in exceptional circumstances approved by the court.”

That’s funny.  The poll question didn’t mention any of those things.  1950s-style-Families First wouldn’t be just using a strangely-innocuous poll question to pretend there’s more support for their misogynist bullshit than there really is, would they?

As a sidenote, you’ve got to love that condition on parental notification.  Circumstances approved by the court!  Because a teen in the kind of situation where it’s in her best interests not to tell her parents she’s getting an abortion totally has time and resources to get a fucking court order without them knowing!  “Honey, why do you have a court date to get an injunction against parental notification of an abortion?  You’re not going to have an abortion, are you?”  “No, possibly abusive parents, of course not!”

The poll also didn’t say anything about how this might make it harder for women to get abortions.  Funny, because if DPF were so concerned maybe he could have counselled his clients about how they might not get accurate results with such an open-ended, not-considering-the-consequences question.

Let’s remember that in New Zealand, even women who get abortions often have no fucking idea at the outset how long and how stressful the process is.  So it’s no fucking good to say “oh, I guess this majority of people just considered that forcing women to see yet another medical practitioner, in order to check that they do really want to undergo the medical procedure they’ve already had to see two medical practitioners whom they’ve had to convince to liberally interpret the law’s definition of “mental health” grounds in order to get permission to have.”

But that’s hardly the only problem with the question.  “Seeing a doctor who is not an abortion provider” is a wonderful little dogwhistle, particularly common to US antichoicers, that somehow Planned Parenthood or Family Planning are just raaaaaaaaaking in the cash, that every Pweshus Embwyo’s life makes them miiiiiillions, that doctors just love facing daily harassment and even the threat of death in order to make the faaaaaaaaaaat dollaaaaaaaaaaaahs out of abortions.

You do realise they could just go into Botoxing women’s faces, right?

DPF’s open-mouthed innocence is brilliant, though:

One salient question I would pose on this issue is whether such a procedure would actually lead to some women not having an abortion due to “better” information, who do currently have an abortion – or would it just be an extra hassle and cost for every woman seeking an abortion, and not actually change anything.

“Salient question”, DPF?  Do your clients know that you’re undermining their entire rationale for forcing women to undergo ultrasounds – i.e. “women are stupid and seeing da widdle handies and feeties (which the vast majority of aborted zefs won’t have anyway) will totes change their minds because they must just think they’re pregnant with guppies.”

And a little protip:  “informed consent” is not the same fucking thing as “an antichoice doctor shoving a probe into your vagina and saying “look there’s a heartbeat, boy this little guy sure is energetic, and did we mention [insert antichoice lie of preference here]*”” … especially when there is no proof it will change someone’s mind.

And a final note:  when antichoicers say “alternatives to abortion”, they mean “adoption“.  Because apparently the alternative to not continuing a pregnancy you don’t want to continue is … continuing a pregnancy you don’t want to continue.  Presumably as long as your baby is “healthy” and “normal” and white.


*My personal favourite is “you’ll die of breast cancer!!!” and right here I think it’s pretty salient to point out that no New Zealand woman has died due to an abortion since 1980.  Out of over 380,000 abortions.  Abortion?  Safer than pregnancy.  But you don’t see Family First arguing that we need to warn women about pre-eclampsia for their own good, that might interfere with The Breeding.

Unsurprising things

An organisation lead by a hetero white conservative man obsessed with authoritarian exercise of violence against children agrees with another organisation lead by a hetero white conservative man obsessed with authoritarian exercise of violence against children.*

Best quotes:

Parents have a tough enough time bringing up their families in the present economic climate without having these pressures put on them

… to not be violent towards their children.  And:

Teachers are currently concerned about the level of bullying in their schools and are reporting a significant rise in the number of disruptive pupils in their classes. It is not hard to find a correlation between children who resist classroom and school norms of behaviour and the loss of confidence in parents in their child rearing abilities brought about by this law.

So … bullying is on the rise and that’s why parents don’t feel confident?  See, I would have assumed the Kiwi[s] [Who Are The Right Kind of White People] Party might’ve made a point about “disruptive kids = need “discipline” / show lack of “discipline”” but this is their own damn press release and that’s apparently not the argument they’re making.  I have great hopes for their electoral lack of chances.

And I’m sure no one could have predicted that Stuff would debut an “agony column” playing on the wonderfully original tropes of She Has A Heart Of Gold And Believes In The Power Of Love But He Is Blunt And Un-PC And Together They Fight Crime.

That first letter sounds entirely genuine, too.


*Only the right children, though.  The ones that deserve it for talking smack to their Noble White Hardworking Parents From Good Neighbourhoods.

Socially-aware kids threaten masculinist family paradigms

[TW: family violence, dehumanisation of children, Bob McCoskrie]

Bob McCoskrie’s boner has reared its ugly purple head again, for the right of parents to treat their children like mindless chattels is being threatened … by the little shits themselves.

You see, Bob and his boner commissioned what I’m sure was a totally neutral and bias-averse poll … from Curia … about our vile anti-twisting-the-law-to-excuse-beating-your-children-with-jug-cords laws.

And apparently:

An independent poll has found that almost a third of parents of younger children say that their children have threatened to report them if they were smacked.

I’m guessing the notion of “so don’t smack your kids” or even “so don’t smack your kids to the extent the Police feel compelled to investigate you” or even “don’t do anything worse than this dude who managed to get acquitted, for fuck’s sake” is so utterly alien to Bob that of course he decided it was somehow cause for panic that under-12s can be mouthy bastards who also sometimes watch the news.

“These are disturbing findings, and shows just how damaging the anti-smacking law has been to parents trying their hardest to raise great kids”

And by “parents trying their hardest to raise kids” Bob actually means “parents who are so fucking insecure they instinctively resort to violence against children when their authority is challenged”.

“By passing the anti-smacking law, [politicians] have completely undermined the authority of good parents and given children a weapon to use against their parents.”


And what’s this “weapon”, again?  Oh right, the ability to have the Police investigate whether a parent’s “discipline” has crossed a line which even this fucker managed not to cross in the eyes of a jury.

We were not surprised that the level of opposition to the law remains.

[Because “we” have spent a year broadcasting misinformation from “our” basement.]

This was a highly flawed law opposed by an overwhelming majority of NZ’ers, yet rammed through parliament by politicians who were more concerned with their respective party leader’s mandate and the interference of the UN.

Funny, I didn’t release that the 113 MPs who voted in favour of the third reading of Bradford’s bill were all from a single UN-sympathetic party.  I am so not up with modern politics the way Bob is.

Typical parenting practices

[TW for child abuse and Bob McCoskrie]

… now apparently include tying a child to your wrist and washing his or her mouth out with soap.

Thus speaketh Bob McCoskrie, defender of families if by “families” we mean “the right of men to use violence to control their partners and children”. [ETA: updated link because Stuff doesn’t believe in archiving]

The lesson to take home from here?  This is why we do not fucking compromise.  We do not fucking say “this law is wrong and we will repeal it, full stop”, and when faced with a barrage of patriarchal and religious fundamentalist abuse, say “okay then, let’s make it a bit softer so the mainstream [who have been convinced by fucking liars like Bob McCoskrie] think it’s okay.”

Because all you get is a law under which this shit continues to fucking happen.

Just to round out the fuckwittery, Bob added this to a media release exported directly from his basement:

Family First NZ* says that parenting is being put on trial as a result of the anti-smacking law, and that it is being used as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ in custody battles

Ignoring the really shitty grammar which seems to imply that parenting is the WMD … what the fuck.

Bob, this may come as a surprise to you since your entire life is focused on your own navel and complaining that bitches need to get back in the kitchen and kids need to be seen and not heard … but WMDs are fucking awful things with a capacity to kill and maim millions of people.

Not, in fact, in any way comparable to “shit that your ex might bring up in a custody battle”.

And frankly, if I had an ex who had forcibly shaved my child’s head as a punishment (there are absolutely no bad connotations there at all) and washed his mouth out with soap you fucking bet I would raise that shit in a custody case.

… And since the parent was fucking acquitted anyway, why the fuck are YOU complaining?

Oh, right.  Because this has never actually been about ensuring that actual child abuse get investigated properly.  It’s about investigating child abuse except when the parents doling it out are good, white, middle-class people who sometimes like to punch their kids in the face, in which case the police and CYF should just assume that nothing could have happened because to even check that shit out is a horrific abuse of power or something.


*Membership:  Bob McCoskrie and his boner.