Victim Blaming

It appears New Zealand is having a victim blaming weekend. I was hoping to write something a little more complex as I got back into the swing of blogging - the limits of an analysis of prejudice maybe, or just more about Joss Whedon. But no

Stuff headlines the article about a double murder in Auckland with Crime of passion at Auckland apartment leaves two dead. The article includes the following quote:

Sources said a 30-year-old Iraqi man walked in on "something he shouldn't" yesterday morning which led to a 2½ hour standoff with police.

I'm not even linking to the article on the inside page, which is describing how Kristin Dunne-Powell behaved before and after having her back broken by Tony Veitch. Guess what? It's not relevant.

Then Ethical Martini (whose ethics appears not to be above a little victim blaming) asks the vital questions, such as was Tony Veitch being blackmailed (nope not linking to that either). Got to love the passive voice, it's easier to hide the fact that you're victim blaming when you don't mention the name.

All this is, of course, sending a message. The same message that the woman who was raped by the English rugby players received. If you are abused by a famous man, do everything you can to keep it quiet, otherwise your every move will be evaluated and dissected, and you will be blamed for the abuse.

Can I make this absolutely clear:

It is never women's fault or responsibility when men abuse them.

Never.

Ever.

Not even if she's drunk.

Nope.

Not even then.

Never.

Dr Horrible's Singalong blog - Act 3 SPOILERS

When I say there are spoilers, I mean it. Go and watch Dr Horrible before you read this post.

I'm still very unsure how to read Dr Horrible's Singalong blog, and the thread at Feministe reveals that there are many ways understanding Dr Horrible's story.

As an origin story I appreciate it; I'd even say it was well done. Not just that there was a lot of the funny clever stuff that I'd expect (the appearance of Bad Horse was pure genius), but showing villains as having origin stories as well as heroes is a cool way of undercutting many of the tropes of an origin story.

I can also appreciate a straight political reading of the story (which is encouraged within the storyas both Penny and Dr Horrible directly discuss how to create change). I don't really mind that the wet liberal who gets sucked in by those in power dies (although not necessarily realistic, as a metaphor it shows the likelihood of that strategy working). I also don't disagree that nihilist, individualists often put their ego before the change they are trying to create and do harm without doing any good. But I don't think any of that says anything particularly substantial, without an alternative (The Chain, Chosen, Graduation, Anne, Prophecy Girl, Jaynestown - Joss does know the alternative).

One of the big questions for me is the depiction of Penny, as the only substantial female character (and it didn't pass the Bechedel test). I actually dislike the 'Joss writes strong female characters' idea, because it is so often referring solely to the female characters who are capable of beating someone up. As someone who was always more interested in Willow than Buffy and Kaylee than River, I appreciate his ability to write interesting female characters, more than his tendency to write so-called 'strong' ones. The idea that the most important female characters to depict are those that can beat up the men who are trying to abuse them, comes perilously close to victim blaming. It's very satisfying to watch Buffy killing Angel at the end of Becoming II, but the death of the robot at the end of I Was Made to Love You, is just as true statement about relationships.

So I have no problem with Penny dying, because women do die when men fight over them (this is from the New Zealand news media today, it's being called a 'crime of passion'). I don't even really have a problem that she is so one dimensional, as we see her through Dr Horrible's eyes, and it is clear that she is just an object to him.

The one thing I did object to was the shot of her in the laundromat with frozen yoghurt, presumably waiting for Billy. The idea is that Billy could have got what he wanted if only he was prepared to treat Penny like a person. If he'd talked with her, rather than built a freeze ray, she would have returned his affections. I really dislike that aspect of these sorts of geek stories, because sometimes people don't love you back. As written it plays into Billy's entitlement over Penny.

I do think that Penny's death and Dr Horrible becoming actually evil was the only way the story could end, and I can see the importance of it as a story. To take us in through the eyes of a low-rent villain, and have us believe him that he's actually the hero, until he's not.

But ultimately, it's not a story that interests me that much. A death ray may be a substitute for a rocket-launcher, but this story didn't have any emotional resonance. The only person whose path was real enough to resonate was Dr Horrible. His loneliness in the last shot, and even the hollowness of getting have truth in them, but for me that is undercut because Dr Horrible's feelings for Penny didn't resonate, and must be, on some level, creepy.

Even more fundamentally, I come back to Grace Paley - because this story was lacking both blood and money. Now Joss has always been kind of shaky on the material reality of his stories (which was what made Firefly so strong), but he's always written about family - actual and created. Without blood there is not heart to his story.

My last post on Tony Veitch

I think I'm almost done on Tony Veitch, and the media response. Well I could probably write many more thousands of words about everything that has made me angry, but it's time to start writing about other things (I have a really good post in my head about the truckies, but I'll probably never write it).

But one aspect of this that I don't want to leave uncommented on, is the faux surprise (or maybe it's real surprise, that's even scarier) of the media that TV presenters are abusive in their relationship. The implicit racism, and pig-ignorance about abuse in these statements was made clear by the Sunday Star Times with its description: "the kind of violence you'd associate with Once Were Warriors."

To recap: Intimate abuse happens everywhere, in Porirua and Khadallah, in council flats, mansions and your local activist house; by all ethnicities: Pakeha, Maori, Samoan, Indian, Tongan, Chinese, American, Vietnamese, Somali; by the richest, and the poorest and everyone in between.

Which isn't to say that these other factors don't change the dynamics of intimate abuse - they do. Kristin Dunne-Powell's (who has my full solidarity and support) financial position made it much easier for her to leave and survive. Those looking at stopping intimate abuse need to look at all sorts of factors

But first those who don't think about intimate abuse from one TV commerical to the next, need to acknowledge that it's not limited to the scary other.


**********

And my very last comment (I hope) will be to quote something Tony Veitch said. Demonstrating that he can see the silver lining in breaking his girlfriend's back:

The one bright spot for me out of this, but the only thing that's kept me sane this week is that if everything hadn't happened I would not have learned lessons, I would not have gone to counselling. I would not have sat in front of a counsellor who was explaining ... it's almost like ... I remember coming home some days with revelations and I would learn stuff, and I would not have learned how to have a relationship and I would not have fallen in love and I wouldn't be married now. I would be alone.

Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog

I'm sure there are people out there who aren't aware that Joss Whedon has written an internet musical alled Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog. I guess it'd be inappropriate to describe these people as living under a rock, since they probably have very fulfilling lives. But I've been very excited about Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog since Joss first started talking about it during the writers strike.*

It was released at drhorrible.com on Tuesday, the second part came out today, and the denouement will be available on Saturday.

I'm enjoying it so far. The acting is superb - Nathan Fillion is particularly funny as Captain Hammer the cheesy uphimself hero nemesis of Dr Evil. The dialogue is very clever, and the songs are fun. The superhero as villain and villain as character we empathise with isn't particularly original, but it's well done. I particularly like that Captain Hammer is a corporate whore who is in with the mayor.

But Joss can do better. Penny, Felicia Day's character, is shown entirely through Dr Horrible's eyes. While we're supposed to sympathise him, he is pretty much a textbook nice guy. And it has yet to pass the Bechdel test (in fact there has only been one woman on screen so far). So far the characters don't resonate in any but the most superficial way, because they have no depth. And we all know that the importance of resonance, and rocket launchers.** I'm hoping that the lack of both of these will be compensated for by the last part.

In the meantime watch Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog, but also read Sugarshock, which is stronger short-silly-Joss.

* It was so dreamy when Joss Whedon my favourite writer who I've loved for a decade, became Joss Whedon a militant union activist.

** That's from Joss Whedon's audio commentary on innocence (since I'm not sure that this post can get any geekier I won't worry about revealing that I have an audio commentary pretty much memorised)

Redemption

As a feminist either you can believe that there is the possibility that violent men can change, or you move to lesbian-feminist commune. I am sometimes uncertain about which option is more unlikely to work. But I've never liked communes so I remain an optimist.

I was going to write a long post on redemption, how it was possible, and why it didn't look like Tony Veitch. But Vic Tamati was on nine-to-noon this morning and demonstrated that in a way I never could.

I disagree very strongly with stargazer - who talks about accountability in terms of a conviction. There are many men convicted of assaulting their partner, or children, who just keep doing it. In this case a conviction would almost certainly lead to a jail term. I may have only seen the corridors and visiting rooms, but jail won't make anyone less abusive. By rendering abusive men powerless it perpetuates the ideas of power and control that feed abuse. External forces, like the court system, are not what's going to create change(although they do at times at as catalysts). What Vic Tamati did, and Tony Veitch didn't do, was talk about what he did without excuses, learn about abusive relationships, and work to help other men who are being abusive.

update I've edited the post because I misrepresented Stargazer's views.

Dear 'The Standard'

You do not write about women very often. You have hardly a post about equal pay, reproduction or violence against women. When it was revealed that Tony Veitch, the only thing you had to say was "John Key sucks". However limited your analysis, you must acknowledge that Labour is not the cure to violence against women, and National is not the cause.

If don't have anything to say about violence against women, then that's ok. We each have a different focus, and no-one can write about everything. But if you have nothing to say, then stay silent. Please stop using women's actual lives and pain to score obscure points.

Tony Veitch

"I will talk to an employment expert about Tony Veitch's employment situation"
"So media expert, what implications does this have for TVNZ?"

Tony Veitch broke his ex-partner's back. The most important issues here aren't about employment or media, but abuse. Kristin Dunne-Powell, was always treated as tangential to the story, but quickly Tony Veitch's abuse also became invisible. The process stories analysing who would do what soon overtook anything substantive.

So I feel the need to talk about some basic facts about abusive relationships:

1. Abuse and violence within relationships tends to escalate.
   
2. Abuse isn't about losing control of yourself, but about gaining power and control over your partner.
3. After a relationship has broken up is the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationship.

The English Rugby Football Union

I've been sick, and there's been so much horrific stuff happening, that every time I've wanted to write I've felt outrage paralysis. So I'm going to go a couple of quick updates on the worst aspects (then I hope to get to a long post of outrage at the Maori party, and less outraged post about the possibilities of redemption, and how it doesn't look like Tony Veitch or Derek Fox).

My first object of outrage is the English Rugby Football Union:

It is up to women who have been raped to use the coping strategies that are best for them at the time. The decision to make a statement, or not make a statement, needs to be based on what she needs. To force women into a particular path is to revictimise her, by giving her no control over her reaction to being raped.

That an official representative of the English rugby team would see fit to comment on how a rape survivor deals with her assault shows that it's not just a team with four players that are rapists, but an institution that upholds rape culture.

No-one is saying this. Even the women's refuge spokesperson on Checkpoint, just talked about the fact that the English rugby players hadn't co-operated with the police when they were in the country, which equates the rapists and the women they raped.

Women? Not the winner on the day

I'm don't follow rugby; I'm not an All Black supporter. I understand that there are pressing issues facing those who are, such as the rotation policy (hell I'm impressed that I know what that means). But, right now, there is a more pressing issue. This is the statement that Graham Henry gave about the English Rugby team:*

I don't know what the details are, but I know there's a bit going on. You don't want any sporting team to be going through those situations. You live in that sort of life yourselves – in the international sporting environment. I think you've got a lot of sympathy for people who go through that situation. Certainly you just like to be supportive.

Who is he supporting? What is the situation?

There are two ways to parse his statement. Either he's saying that there's not possibility that the woman was raped, and being accused of rape is part of the international sporting environment. Or he's allowing for the possibility of rape, but he's supporting them anyway.

Neither of those options should be acceptable. That the coach of the All Blacks can say this, and no-one mentions anything except about the match tomorrow night, shows just how far we haven't come. As Anna McM says, rugby culture in our society has a large role in upholding rape culture. The question I have, particularly for those who play or watch rugby, is how do we change that?

Note for the comments: I will be moderating this thread hard. No rape myths, no misogyny, nothing about the woman involved.

*For those who don't know the police adult sexual assault team want to question four England players.

Irony much?

From Winston Peters:

"If you want commitment and drive and ambition to work in a greater collegial or community sense, then you must place your faith in the women of this part of the world, rather than the men who ... spend most of their time parading around like peacocks and do no work when it matters."

Mr Peters said it was not his intention to lecture Pacific Island countries, but New Zealand was entitled to ask "some pretty simple questions like how come all these useless males are running the show".

Electoral Politics Friday: Why Chris Trotter and the Standard are full of shit

I do have a lot to say about the recent High Court decision on abortion. But I lost my voice (not metaphorically I've had a cold), and I'm trying to recover. So you'll have to wait for my own thoughts. What I have to respond to straight away is the attempt, by smug labour-party men to use this as political point scoring.

Chris Trotter wrote:

So, all of you young, confident women of the 21st century urgently need to pause and reflect upon what is happening – especially all you young, confident women thinking of voting for the National Party.

The Standard quoted this approvingly and added:

A National government would change the direction of this country, away from social reforms to greater conservatism and even regression on social issues. National opposed civil unions, prostitution reform, paid paternal leave, s59, and every other social reform.

Notice the sleight of hand, the ease at which they move away from talking about a women's right to decide whether to go through pregnancy. In order to pretend that the labour government has supported women's right to an abortion, they have to avoid talking about abortion. Because the last substantial changes to our abortion law were passed in 1978, under Muldoon. The reason that Justice Miller can say that there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions, is that our abortion law was designed to make most abortions illegal. The people who wrote our abortion law, were the sort of people who argue that rape shouldn't be a criteria for abortion, because then women will claim to have been raped in order to get an abortion.

Helen Clark and Phil Goff spoke out about how bad the law we have now is back when it passed, but they haven't done anything about it, since they had the power to.* Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Ruth Dyson, Margaret Wilson, Marianne Hobbes, Maryann Street - they were prepared to fight this battle in the 1970s, before they got into parliament, they were feminists (or feminist supporters) then. And it's not just those who are in parliament now the numbers have been there for at least the last nine years, others had their chance: Jonathan Hunt, Matt Robeson, Laila Harre, and especially Phillida Bunkle.

Any one of those MPs could have written a private members bill that ended this. 18,000 women every year have the stress of jumping through certifying consultant hoops to get an abortion. First trimester abortions become second trimester abortions, because no-one gives a damn about those women. And now things may get worse, the Abortion Supervisory Committee may tighten the screws on certifying consultants, the hoops may get higher and the. None of this would have happened if any of the MPs who believe that women have a right to choose whether or not to end their pregnancy had acted on their beliefs.

Despite this Chris Trotter and The Standard are still trying to use abortion law as a reason to vote Labour. If we're not good, if we don't do what they want, things will get worse. But if Chris Trotter or The Standard really cared about women's control of their bodies, they would have said something before now. They would have spoken up for the hundreds of women each week who go through the certifying consultant process. They weren't prepared to fight for something better than the bad system that we've got now. Chris Trotter doesn't even care about abortion enough to get his fact rights, arguing that 1978 was the year women won the right to safe legal abortion in New Zealand - in 1978 there were 100 women a week who had to fly to Australia to get safe legal abortions.

* Twenty years ago, when she was Minsiter of Health, Helen Clark proposed a bill that would allow all doctors to be certifying consultants. She gave up pretty quickly and hasn't tried anything since.