Category Archives: Feminism

Feminism, Religion, sexism

Rampant sexism in Friday’s MX (10 September 2010)

Colour me surprised and everything… who thought I’d find rampant sexism and plain bad journalism in the Herald Sun’s tabloid afternoon news paper… but I did and I thought, why not blog about it with my OODLES of spare time (hah!).  For what it is worth, one of their journalists wrote an opinion piece dismissing the article discussing gender roles being linked to biology (thank you so much Amelia Grevis-James).

So onto the articles which upset me. I’ll find equivalent links to either news.com.au articles on the same topic, or other relevant news sources as I discuss each article that offended me.

Sin? Your biology made you do it  (Maria Bervanakis)

This article is so NOT newsworthy that it was not run by news.com.au nor any other actual news source (I cannot find it on google news at all).  Instead, the best source I can find for it is Newswise from August this year.  Maria tells us that:

A study by a church-backed uni found that biology has a major role in sinful behaviour.

US Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Matthew Stanford, of the Baylor University in Texas, examined years of research into people that commit the seven deadly sins and discovered their actions could be explained by their physical make-up.

What the article in the MX doesn’t say, which is reported in Newswise, is that Professor Stanford himself is religiously aligned, which is evident in the use of “sin” if you think about it.  The Newswire also doesn’t report of Professor Stanford actually has any qualifications in biology other than his qualifications in Neuroscience, and indeed where he obtained the qualifications he holds.

Newswire reports:

Stanford said all of the behaviors outlined in the book violate, in some way, the creative order that God has established, yet something biologically occurs in us that causes the behavior. However, biology is not destiny, Stanford said, and when we fully understand the effects of sin on our physical bodies, it becomes clear that “broken biology” can never be used as an excuse for sinful behavior.

As Stanford studied the data, he also noticed that, on average, men and women sin differently. Stanford said men tend to be outwardly manifested and focused on obtaining immediate gratification like aggression or adultery. The sins of women, on the other hand, tend to be more inwardly focused and concern on relational status, privilege or position like envy or pride.

“Because God created men and women physically different, it is understandable that the effect of original sin on our bodies and minds varies between the sexes,” Stanford said. “This is not to say that men and women differ in their degree of sinfulness, but simply that they sin in different ways. Men and women are equally sinful and sin is equally destructive in both.”

Each of these paragraphs should be addressed, although briefly because I don’t want to give this whackjob more time than he’s already had.

  1. Professor Stanford has published a book.  I haven’t read it, I’m not going to read it, and quite frankly am not interested in reading a book regarding what someone views as “sin” when I don’t share his religion.  To suggest that sin has any “effects on our physical bodies” without actually being clearer and providing examples (yes I know this is a summary report) and then saying that “‘broken biology’ can never be used as an excuse for sinful behaviour” comes across more as homosexuality is a sin and even if being gay is biological it is still a sin and you can control your behaviour.
  2. Look, men and women are different so they act differently and sin differently.  Quite frankly Professor Stanford, go fuck yourself and attend some Feminism 101 before ever saying such crap again.
  3. Look sinfulness is destructive (though it all depends on what you view as wrongful behaviour – according to Prof Stanford I’m a terrible sinner and would never get to heaven) and it impacts on women and men differently because they are different.  Seriously Professor Stanford, go and meet some actual real people and find out how similar (apart from societal conditioning) men and women actually are.

Wife’s pay can cost a marriage (unattributed)

This article was also run The Times of India, I can find no other news source in Australia that ran this piece.

Apparently, if a woman in a heterosexual relationship out-earns her male partner, that relationship breaking up is far more likely than in situations where a woman under earns her male partner. From MX:

The finding is the result of a 25-year study of more than 2500 marriages and follows other research showing that house-husbands are prone to affairs.

The US researchers found that women who consistently made more money than their husbands were up to 38 per cent more likely to divorce than others.

Jay Teachman, of Western Washington University, said possible reasons for the statistic were that financial independence makes it easier for women to escape an unhappy marriage, and dented egos – of both sexes.

For a happy marriage, Teachman recommends a 60/40 split in income, with the husband being the higher earner.

Thank you Mr Teachman for suggesting that women continue to earn less money than men and therefore have less money as a safety net to retire on.  Thank you Mr Teachman for proposing that instead of finding a way to solve the problem you’ve identified by having society treat each partner’s contribution to the relationship as valid, that women just take lower paying jobs.  And you know what lower paying jobs typically are Mr Teachman?  Would you do them?

This issue has been covered repeatedly, even on news.com.au.  So here are some good links so I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, you can just read it yourself.  🙂

So it’d be nice Mr Teachman if you actually think beyond “let’s make the wimmenz earnz less” and into whether or not those relationships should have been saved, what societal changes need to be made so that if women out-earn men then nothing negative happens.

Payback for hubby theft (unattributed)

Matching article at the Vancouver Sun.

Now… last I checked if you were going to have an affair with someone, that other person had to be willing – otherwise we’re entering the realm of unconsensual behaviour – and the MX and the Vancouver Sun certainly do not suggest there was any question of consent.  The MX used terms like “theft” and “stolen” in this article, which implies that the husband in this case was an automaton and had no part to play in the affair he clearly was involved in.  So yes, it takes two to tango here and suggesting otherwise removes agency from the now ex-husband and makes him completely blameless.  I note that the Vancouver Sun did not use either “theft” or “stolen”.

I’m not going to debate the strange law that North Carolina has on it’s books here right now.

So thank you MX for continuing the sexism that is prevalent in the world right now.  You had a great opportunity to dispel sexism and make the world a better place, but no you decided to wander the easy path and screw women over again.  I appreciate it, I really do.

Related Posts:

Feminism

Great female inventors

Many years ago, when the world wide web still had that brand new smell to it (circa 1997), I frequented a usenet group called, “alt.nuke.the.USA”.  On that list, during one of the many flame wars that happened, a misogynist claimed that women had invented nothing worthwhile.  This, unsurprisingly, upset me and I went about proving he was wrong, because it was not all that difficult.  Well so I thought, but in 1997 useful pages that listed inventions by gender weren’t available and so I had to do some digging.  The internet today is a much more organised place.

This post is to acknowledge the awesome work done by some amazing women who often had to fight to have their inventions recognised, for example, “The [USA] Patent Act of 1790 opened the door for anyone, male or female, to protect his or her invention with a patent. However, because in many [US] states women could not legally own property independent of their husbands, many women inventors didn’t bother to patent their new inventions.” (Wikipedia)

I could write about all the amazing female inventors that have graced the planet, but as several other sites (see above) have already done that for me, I won’t, though I do have quite a few favourites.  What constantly surprises me is how many female inventors were denigrated because their inventions only helped women, as if helping 50% of the population of the planet was a bad thing or something not worth doing.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Feminism, LGBTIQ

Who gets to decide these things anyway?

Most of the internet will be rightly outraged at Dr New of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University and her “treatment” of pregnant women using “safe” (read dangerous with terrible side-effects) hormones in order to cure teh gay…  PZ Myers and Dan Savage have blogged about the pure evil that this whole thing is in relation to lying about the drug’s safety, ethics approval, experimenting on humans, etc.  I don’t want to go over that other than to say that if my mother had been convinced to take this drug when she was pregnant with me, I wouldn’t exist as I do now.  No more bisexual woman out to herd geek cats with the best of them.

What I want to consider here is the fact that someone came up with the idea that to be a “proper female” you shouldn’t “display an “abnormal” disinterest in babies, [not] want to play with girls’ toys or become mothers, and [not choose a] “career preferences” [which is] deemed too “masculine.”” (Quote taken from Dan’s blog and then amended)

Who gets to say which career paths are too “masculine”?  I thought, now that we’re in 2010 and have attempted as much as possible to win the whole equal pay in relation to employment that all career choices were open to women and none could really be defined as “too masculine”.  I know that there are career paths which are dominated by one gender with rare incursions (for want of a better word) by the opposite gender, such as childcare and nursing for women and truck driving and construction work for men.  Though I wouldn’t say that those career paths are actually gendered other than by history and the current status quo.

I do wonder what Dr New and her researchers deemed to be a masculine career preferences and why, in the age of enlightenment that we’re supposed to be in (as far as women’s alleged ability to access any job she’s qualified for) choosing a non-traditional job for women is a bad thing.  My biggest concern is that Dr New and her team are attempting to impose patriarchal ideals of womanhood and what is means to be a proper/successful woman without looking at the benefits that women have gained over the past century.  Without sitting down and asking themselves if the meaning of “man” and “woman” have changed in a positive way that benefits everyone, including any children they may choose to have. How much do they want women to regress?

Erasing diversity and introducing conformity in our population to fit some weird hetero-normative ideal of what it is to be a proper woman or a proper man lessens us all.  As a diverse population of straight, gay, lesbian, trans*, bisexual, intersex, queer and questioning individuals we all have strengths that compliment each other’s weaknesses.  As a diverse population with interests in different career paths, we keep the economy moving and bring different strengths to the workplace.

I want to see Dr New, and anyone else who thinks that using this drug to treat non-CAH female fetuses, disbarred from practising medicine and forced to attend diversity education before they can re-register.   Oh and the ethics departments who have allowed this human experimentation… same deal.

Related Posts:

Feminism, politics

Queen’s Birthday Honours List – Sausage-fest

I wasn’t going to blog this weekend or until after my exams are done, but then I read the Queen’s Birthday Honours List as printed in The Age (gotta love the sub-editor who failed to notice “brithday”) and was absolutely horrified by the lack of female representation in the awards.  On my visual count (and I counted a total of 653 awards approximately), only 28% of the awards went to women.  All categories had an appalling representation of women.  Just looking at the police force and armed services and you’d think that there were next to no women in those fields.  Women make up slightly over half of the population, why are women making up far less than half of the QUEEN’s birthday list?

My count is as follows:

Order of Australia
Companion (AC) in the general division
Total awardees – 5
No of women – 1

Officer (AO) in the General Division
Total awardees – 21
No of women – 5

Officer (AO) in the Military Division
Royal Australian Navy
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Royal Australian Air Force
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Member (AM) in the General Division
Total awardees – 136
No of women – 33 – 35 (two awardee’s gender could not be identified)

Member (AM) in the Military Division
Royal Australian Navy
Total awardees – 2
No of women – 0

Australian Army
Total awardees – 8
No of women – 0

Medal (OAM) in the general division
Total awardees – 303 (approx)
No of women – 118 (approx)

Medal (OAM) in the Military Division
Royal Australian Navy
Total awardees – 2
No of women – 0

Australian Army
Total awardees – 5
No of women – 0

Royal Australian Air Force
Total awardees – 4
No of women – 0

Australian Public Service Medal

Australian Public Service

Total awardees – 17
No of women – 5

NSW Public Service
Total awardees – 11
No of women – 1

Victoria Public Service
Total awardees – 6
No of women – 2

Queensland Public Service
Total awardees – 5
No of women – 2

Western Australia Public Service
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 1

South Australia Public Service
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 1

Australian Police Medal
Australian Federal Police
Total awardees – 2
No of women – 0

NSW Police
Total awardees – 8
No of women – 0

Victoria Police
Total awardees – 5
No of women – 1

Queensland Police
Total awardees – 6
No of women – 1

Western Australia Police
Total awardees – 4
No of women – 0

South Australia Police
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 0

Tasmania Police
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Nothern Territory
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Australian Fire Service Medal
NSW Fire Services
Total awardees – 11
No of women – 0

Victoria Fire Services
Total awardees – 9
No of women – 0

Queensland Fire Services
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 0

Western Australia Fire Services
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

South Australian Fire Services
Total awardees – 2
No of women – 1

ACT Fire Services
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Ambulance Service Medal (ASM)
Queensland Ambulance Service
Total awardees – 2
No of women – 0

South Australian Ambulance Service
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

ACT Ambulance Service
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 1

Emergency Services Medal (ESM)
Queensland Emergency Services
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 0

Western Australia Emergency Services
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 0

South Australia Emergency Services
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Commendation for Gallantry
Australian Army
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 0

Distinguished Service Medal (DSM)
Australian Army
Total awardees – 4
No of women – 0

Commendation for Distinguished Service
Australian Army
Total awardees – 8
No of women – 0

Bar to the Conspicuous Service Cross
Australian Army
Total awardees – 1
No of women – 0

Conspicuous Service Cross (CSC)
Royal Australian Navy
Total awardees – 6
No of women – 0

Australian Army
Total awardees – 9
No of women – 1

Royal Australian Air Force
Total awardees – 6
No of women – 1

Conspicuous Service Medal (CSM)
Royal Australian Navy
Total awardees – 3
No of women – 1

Australian Army
Total awardees – 13
No of women – 4

Royal Australian Air Force
Total awardees – 4
No of women – 1

Total awardees – 653 (approx)
Total No of women – 183 (approx)
Percentage representation – 28%

Related Posts:

Feminism, Religion

Christianity and women and sex

This is going to be a really short post, but I have to share it after finding this blog post on the internets.  I don’t know who Mark Gungor actually is, apart from someone who claims some authority on Christian marriage and relationships… but after reading the blog post linked to above, I think he needs to start all over again, perhaps with proper education about relationships and statutory laws.

Relevant annoying and icky bits from his blog are below:

I’ll dispel the myth regarding the requirement of a huge emotional connection. Women, more often than men, get hung up on this one and think they have to have all these warm and fuzzy emotions to feel like they can get physical with their husbands. I’m not saying that you always have sex with no emotion or connection–that would not be a healthy relationship. But what I am saying is that sometimes sex can just be sex.

…

As I said, sometimes sex is just sex; it’s what you do when you are married. Just like cleaning the toilet is what you do to keep your house clean…and I bet you don’t have this great desire or huge emotional connection to scrubbing the porcelain! You do it because it needs to be done and that’s the way it is with married sex… it does need to be done! It’s the glue that God gave us to bond us to one another. The bible is very clear that it is your responsibility as a spouse.

Understand that there is no need for all this desire and emotion nonsense. Don’t feel badly if you aren’t overwhelmed by all the over-the-moon feelings and passion ahead of time. There is nothing wrong with you. If you can enjoy sex once you start and have a good time, that’s all that matters. Just break the mindset that you won’t do it unless you feel like it. Let not your hearts be troubled. Just enjoy the deal without all the fuss and worry over the desire and emotion. It’s actually a trap, that if you aren’t careful, you can get caught in and you, your spouse and your relationship will suffer. (Emphasis in original)

Some of the comments on this thread are horrifying.  One woman says she was sexually abused before her marriage and after marriage her husband was not affectionate and was resentful of the healing she had to do from the assault.  She claims that often sex was unemotional and she relived the sexual abuse, and had she known that she could have just been unfeeling about the whole thing, then it would have been ok.  I really didn’t know what to do when I read this comment apart from bang my head against the desk.

A lone atheist who has found the blog through a friend takes on almost all the Christian commenters and the author herself.  She calls out the rape apology present by clearly arguing that such expectations of “having sex when you don’t want to” apply only to women and actually is rape, which is illegal.  She discusses the difference between subservience and equality, and quotes the bible back at those who quote it to her, in good productive ways.  The comments that she participates in are AWESOME.  I’d suggest reading them just for what she’s written.

But this whole post is a big concern – apart from the fact that a marriage counsellor of some description is telling people to just lie back and think of … well something – because it’s aim is at women.  You would never see a man being told to just have sex with someone, even if they don’t want to, because its far harder to fake an erection.

The Christian commentators and author keep returning to the bible, and to their understanding of how relationships should work based on the bible, which is a bad place to start methinks.  Their thinking is narrow minded and flawed and because Christianity is inherently misogynistic, their attitudes towards women are terrible (and sadly so are the attitudes of some of the female commentators towards themselves), and the idea of equality of women in a relationship isn’t really considered.

Some of the male commentators said they liked to do things for their wives because it made their wives happy, but there was very little discussion about how they have sex with their wives when they don’t want to – because that isn’t going to happen.

There is a lot wrong with Christianity and women in Christianity and I could blog at length about it, but for now, I’m just going to headdesk at this post some more and then go to bed.

Related Posts:

Feminism

Feminist Blogs to read

3 Comments

Here is a list of feminist blogs that I read regularly, some international, some Australian, one from NZ, one from the UK and some who are more USA focused.

FWD/Forward

This is a blog written by disabled feminists (Feminists With Disabilities), and has writers based in the USA, Canada and Australia.  They do a fantastic job of looking at feminist theory and their application and intersection with disability theories, as well as posts on ablest words, treatment of disabled individuals, media coverage, and education.  From their blog:

FWD/Forward is a group blog written by feminists with disabilities. It is a place to discuss disability issues and the intersection between feminism and disability rights activism. The content here ranges from basic information which is designed to introduce people who are new to disability issues or feminism to some core concepts, to more advanced topics, with the goal of promoting discussion, conversation, fellowship, and education.

It is a fascinating blog with amazing writers.  I highly recommend it, particularly if you are interested in disability activism and theory as well as feminism.

Geek Feminism Blog

A friend of my sister writes and possibly founded this blog.  Its a blog for female geeks and looks at sexism in the Open Source community, gaming and more.  Since I am a geek, and move with people in the Open Source community, gaming and other geeky pursuits, I find this blog fascinating in relation to what is going on, how issues are being dealt with and the really great posts that are written by the regular and guest contributors.

Hoyden About Town

I first found this blog when I went looking for Australian feminist blogs.  Its a great blog that covers Australian issues, media reports on feminism, disability issues and has a great link list each week.  There are fantastic articles posted here regularly and I love the way the contributors both write.

In a Strange Land

A blog written by a Kiwi who is now living in Australia.  She writes about Australian and New Zealand feminism issues as well as other NZ political and racial issues as fit.  I love the semi-regular excerpts from feminism theory and the quote on her page:

If all men are born free, how is it that all Women are born slaves? as they must be if the being subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary Will of Men, be the perfect Condition of Slavery? and if the Essence of Freedom consists, as our Masters say it does, in having a standing Rule to live by?

Mary Astell, Some Reflections on Marriage, 1700

The Pursuit of Harpyness

The Harpys blog about feminism in the US context, which often has similar but not quite the same issues as found in Australia.  Their posts are often entertaining, amusing and are certainly well thought out and reasoned. They blog on feminism, race and Being A Bitch.

this ain’t livin’

The blog of meloukhia, aka s.e smith, who was recently described as a new wave feminist due to the way ou writes, deconstructs arguments and theories carefully and for ou’s general awesomeness.  She writes about media, disability, feminism, language use, queerdom and stories that take ou’s fancy.  I tend not to read ou’s deconstruction of TV shows since I don’t watch the same ones ou does.  And ou is apparently an old English gender neutral pronoun that s.e smith prefers, hence the use of it here.

Too Much To Say For Myself

A feminist, labour unionist and activist blogger from the UK.  Recently she’s been doing a great job at looking at the evident sexism in the media around the UK elections.  She posts about labour activism and feminism, sometimes how they intersect and sometimes just on each one.

Zero at the Bone

A blog that covers really interesting things about intersectionality, race issues, feminism and disability, and is Australian.  The author is an amazing writer and I love reading her stuff.  She has a good introductory post to her writing here.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Feminism, Language

Problematic Words: Bitch

1 Comment

This is the first in which may or may not turn out to be a series on words I have issues with.  I am aware of and support efforts in reclaiming language used against marginalised groups and bodies.  I support people’s identities and the words they use in describing themselves.  This is a post about words that others use and how they are used by others.

Ok, so bitch… lets break it down a little.  Initially the word was used to describe a female dog or female canine.  Dogs are lower life-forms (traditionally) than people and are belongings.  So to refer to a woman or another person as a bitch is a dehumanising exercise, they are now a lower life-form (not human) and are a belonging, whether yours (my bitch) or someone else’s (their bitch).

Its also used in a sex negative context as well, referring to women (and only women) as being like a “bitch in heat”, which suggests that women are uncontrollable when they want sex, much like female dogs.

Bitch is also used to describe certain types of behaviour, such as bitchiness and bitchy.  Typically this refers to back-stabbing, gossiping and other unpleasant behaviour.  Descriptions of this behaviour is also given to gay men, which suggests that gay men are acting like unpleasant women.

If you are “someone’s bitch” then typically this means that you are their belonging.  So if I refer to X as “my bitch” then they’re mine, dehumanised and property.  Not such a good way to describe someone.  However, I do understand, and do refer to my physical belongings, as bitch from time to time.  If something slips out of my hands and I’m frustrated, I’ll say, “Argh! You bitch”, but I’m actually referring to inanimate objects here. And because I don’t like to dehumanise people I’m not going to call someone a bitch.

The Harpies, refer to women sometimes just having to “Be A Bitch”, usually to men, when boundaries are overstepped and there is a need to be assertive or opinionated because the other is not paying attention to your subtext, body language or even polite words about going away.  They’ve written about such things here and here and elsewhere on their site.  I am all behind assertive behaviour and sometimes just having to be rude if that’s what it takes for you to be safe, happy or unharassed, but I still have issues with calling it “Being A Bitch” because I don’t think that that word should be used to describe a set of allegedly unpleasant behaviours which are clearly just being assertive or opinionated as you see fit.

But I’ve been thinking about men’s fear of women’s anger and power and the word “bitch.”

Bitch, bitching, etc.:  these are thrown at women all the time, for any minor “infraction,” from asking for parity in pay or pleasure to daring to stand up for yourself.  I have no doubt that those who use it mean to silence and intimidate women.  (From The Pursuit of Harpyness)

I’m all for telling people to “shut the fuck up” or to “fuck off” when they harass me on the street, on the internet or anywhere else.  If someone calls me a bitch for knowing my boundaries, knowing what makes me feel safe or for turning them down, then that’s their problem and not mine. I’m not going to go home and be upset about it overly, but I don’t think I’ll personally ever reclaim the word “bitch”.  I can be assertive, just like men are allowed to be, and that doesn’t make me a bitch.  I can be opinionated, just like men are allowed to be, and that doesn’t make me a bitch.

I think the word “bitch” is usually pulled out when women act in ways that we’re “not supposed to”.  We’re supposed to be submissive and easy to target.  We’re supposed to be soft, gentle and unassuming… and quite frankly all of that can fuck off.

Related Posts:

Feminism, Sex Positivity

Movie Review: Kick Ass

The movie is ultra violent, something which disturbed me, because I’m not a fan of gore – though that could have been close to realistic levels and been far more ick – it was quite toned down.

That said, the movie had some fantastic social commentary nestled in there that only becomes evident once you sit back and start thinking about it.

Firstly, violence is clearly part of nurture and not nature. Hit Girl was brought up to be able to look after herself, kill, incapacitate and not be squeamish about such things.

Secondly, Hit Girl demonstrates that girls can do all the things that are typically the domain of boys, she is able to defend herself, fight to protect those she cares about, kill, incapacitate and swear. Despite her ultra-violent upbringing, she’s still human, loves her dad who clearly dotes on her and wants him to be proud of her – just like any other child regardless of gender.

That aside, the film is also incredibly sex positive. When Dave and his girlfriend eventually hook up and act like sexual teenagers, the film doens’t make that a bad thing. Dave’s dad is happy his son has a girlfriend and tells him so, without any lecturing about “saving himself for marriage” or other such nonsense. The opening scenes about masturbation being a normal part of life also reinforce the sex positivity of this film.

This isn’t a children’s film – and the rating clearly demonstrates that.

The language in the film might be confronting for those who stuff their ears full of cotton wool every time they walk outside. It was funny to hear a tween swear, and particularly a tween girl swear, but really they’re just words people.

Related Posts:

Feminism

This is why we need relationship training

Today survey results from a study conducted by VicHealth for the Australian Federal Government, into attitudes regarding  violence against women.  The full reports and stuff from VicHealth are here, the ABC coverage of the report is here.

This is the first such survey since 1995, so its been a while since the last one and this survey covered a broad spectrum of the Australian population.  The disturbing findings (“challenges”) as listed in the fact sheet are below:

Fewer people in 2009 believe that slapping and pushing a partner to cause harm or fear is a ‘very serious’ form of violence than in 1995 (from 64% in 1995 to 53% in 2009).

So although the percentage of people who think that slapping and pushing a partner to cause harm or fear has dropped, it is still stupidly high.

22% of people in 2009 believe that domestic violence is perpetrated equally by both men and women compared with 9% in 1995.

This is better I suppose.  Domestic violence is perpetrated by both genders, even if one gender features higher in statistics of domestic violence, but the number is still low, meaning that men who are victims of domestic violence are unlikely to be able to get the help or validation they need.

34% believe that ‘rape results from men being unable to control their need for sex’.

This feeds back into rape culture and the fact that men shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions in relation to sex, because it is an overwhelming thing that just destroys their minds…. or something.  Seriously although someone may crave sex, they can just masturbate versus raping someone.

One in four people (26%) disagrees that ‘women rarely make false claims of being raped’.

To put this in perspective, 26% of the people surveyed believe that women cry rape for fun.  Seriously people what is wrong with you?  Why would someone falsely claim that they were raped by someone else?  This is such a damaging claim, it detracts from everyone who has ever been raped and forces victims to go further than they need to to prove that they have been raped.  This is one reason why so many victims don’t go to the authorities after they’ve been raped, because who would believe them?

13% of people still agree that women ‘often say no when they mean yes’ and roughly one in six (16%) agrees that a woman ‘is partly responsible if she is raped when drunk or drug affected’.

This again is pure rape culture. The one at fault for raping someone is the rapist, and not the victim.  Victim blaming does not reduce rape culture, does not help the victim and if someone says “NO”, then that’s pretty clear.  When I say “No”, I do not mean, “Please come by and rape me later, it’d be fun.”  Thankfully there are some good rape prevention programs being launched around the world.

One in five people (22%) believes that domestic violence can be excused if later the perpetrator regrets what they have done.

“Oh, I’m so sorry I punched you in the face and gave you a black eye.  I didn’t mean to fracture your eye socket, I was having a bad day.”

Does that work for you?  Do you feel better now about that black eye and fractured eye socket, having to wear makeup to hide the bruising?  Probably not.  Domestic violence should not be excused, it is assault, it is a crime and no matter how sorry to perpetrator feels afterwards, that does not excuse what they did.  You may choose to forgive them, but that doesn’t wipe the slate and make what they did acceptable.

Eight in ten people in the general community say it is hard to understand why women stay in violent relationships and more than half believe a woman could leave a violent relationship if she really wanted to.

Thanks to the Family Law Center I have the perfect answer to this (yay the internet!).

Simply asking the question “Why do women stay in violent relationships?” is blaming the victim. People don’t seem to ask nearly as often, “Why do men batter?”, a question which places the blame with the perpetrator. It is easy to blame the victims in battering relationships. Often, those outside the relationship will think that if she really wants to leave, she can. However, abuse is never the victim’s fault, and there are often many psychological issues affecting abused women and their ability to leave an abusive relationship.

Ok, so to take this back to the title of the post.  I’ve been a long believer in the fact that sex education in Australia is completely inadequate to prepare people for not just sex but also relationships with the people they’re having sex with.  Teenagers muddle along in relationships, possibly basing them on what they’ve read, other relationships they’ve witnessed (good and/or bad) and the media.  If the education system actually had proper discussions about types of relationships, what was good in a relationship and what could be bad or problematic, that alternate relationship styles (BDSM, polyamory, etc) were ok and that alternate sexualities were also ok, then suddenly we have a system that can start preparing children and teenagers to have good relationships.  If we throw in good communication skills; an understanding of why honesty is important with your partner; proper discussions of domestic violence and sexual assault; and discussions of STI testing, and we’ve moved to providing a world class educational model for the next generation.

If this is done well, then maybe we’d reduce the number of people who think that victims should be blamed, reduce rape culture and get that tricky issue of consent sorted out.

Related Posts:

Feminism

Derryn Hinch – longtime campaigner against sexual abuse

[Trigger warning – this post discusses sexual abuse and the articles linked in this post may contain graphic descriptions of sexual abuse]

Say what you like about Derryn Hinch, and I’ve said plenty before, but he certainly has chosen a cause that makes me grateful he’s still around annoying everyone.  I always thought that Hinch was like a bulldog… he’d grab a story, an idea, or even a misrepresentation and keep at it until he’d made a point, and given his current campaign against sexual abuse landing him in trouble, you’d think that maybe he’d back off and find something else to campaign against.

But no… this is Derryn Hinch, and he is a bulldog.  He wrote an article in The Sunday Age regarding a church elder/founder who stands accused of abusing the position of trust that he held within that organisation through sexually abusing a woman who had survived sexual abuse as a child from her family.  Being Derryn Hinch, which kinda means he has different ways and means that the average person, he grabbed this story and ran… tugged… whatever it is that bulldogs do.  He broke this story for The Age, and I suspect we’ll hear more about it and the fallout, especially as the alleged abuser claims he has not resigned his position within his church/thing despite the officials of the church/thing claiming he has.

Is there a point here?  Not overly… I do like being surprised by people in unexpected ways, even after I’ve decided I don’t like them.  I still think that Hinch is an over opinionated shock-jock, but there appears to be common ground between him and I that I never thought I’d find.

Related Posts: