No, seriously, please stop bringing up false accusations when we talk about rape

So, there’s a bit of a kerfuffle (trigger warning for victim blaming, rape apologism, ableism, and general fuckwittery if you choose to go to the link) going on over on the Frankie Magazine facebook page at the moment regarding the use of the term “eye-raping” in one of their articles. It started off pretty standard—someone brought it up, it got a lot of likes, the magazine posted a pretty gross fauxpology, people responded to that.

Earlier today, it probably had about a dozen comments. Then I went to take a nap and, while I was snoozing, it exploded into a messy, derailing attempt to fill the anti-feminist bingo card. But at some point in the middle of it, after I woke up and for some bizarre reason decided to give rational discussion a go (before I was told that I should go back to swinging my man decapitator, and that I keep my husband’s testicles locked up in the drawer by my bed), I ended up posting about why it’s fucked up to try and turn the focus onto false rape allegations when rape is being discussed. I’m posting it here for posterity, because it is an important discussion to have, but also because the way that thread is going I’m guessing it will soon be gone.

The reason people get pissed off when someone comes into a discussion about rape with “but some women lie about being raped!” is that it’s a very common derailing tactic. It’s not relevant to the discussion, it doesn’t add anything of value; all it does is shift the focus of conversation from the huge number of sexual assaults committed (seriously, one in four women, one in eight men, one in two trans* people, and 60-90% of people with disabilities is a huge frickin’ number), to a discussion of false rape reports that are very much in the minority. False rape reports occur at the same rate as other false reports, and that’s before you take into consideration that the vast majority of sexual assault goes unreported in the first place. And funnily enough, it doesn’t seem to happen with any other type of crime. When I’m talking about a string of burglaries in my neighbourhood, no one has ever chimed in with “well, you know, some people make a false burglary report to get insurance money”. When someone gets beaten up on Courtenay Place on a Saturday night, I’ve never seen a Stuff commenter talk about their “sister’s boyfriend’s cousin who pretended he’d been beaten up because he wanted to get back at his mate”. Yet, somehow, in every discussion about rape that takes place, people feel the need to bring up false rape reports as though they are somehow just as, or more, important than the fact that, if we look ONLY at the sexual assault cases reported to the police last year (remembering that anywhere from 40-90% of sexual assaults go unreported), then nine people a day were raped in New Zealand in the year ending June 2012.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been told that false rape accusations are “the real issue here” when discussing the shockingly prevalent sexual assault rates we have in New Zealand. And I am all for discussing the issue of false rape accusations—as a separate issue to sexual assault. I’m all for it, as long as we’re discussing actual false rape accusations, not reports that are later retracted because the victim can’t face trial, or is pressured into recanting (by family, friends of their attacker, etc), or situations where it goes to trial and the accused is found not guilty.

But please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop derailing discussions about rape and sexual assault with your “what about those bitches who cry rape and ruin men’s lives” bullshit. It’s not helpful, it’s not conducive to a reasonable discussion, and it makes you look like a giant jackass.

Unless, of course, that’s what you’re going for—in which case, carry on, you’re doing a great job.

 

The Bystander Effect and Photojournalism

Trigger warning for violence on this post, including domestic violence.

Just before my nineteenth birthday, I got jumped by gang members.

This is simultaneously more and less thrilling than it sounds. I lived next door to a few of them; my only issue with them was the constant loud and late parties. But one Sunday afternoon they were itching for a fight, and I was the one with the shit luck of answering the door. I got dragged outside by my hair and as the kicking and punching sounded, my survival instincts kicked in, and I screamed my head off. I kept screaming as loudly and continuously as my lungs would let me; well aware that I was in a somewhat secluded courtyard and no one would be able to see me, but they might be able to hear me. My flatmates came to my rescue and got me back inside, although not before I’d lost most of my hair, and sustained two black eyes, a scratched cornea, a fractured cheekbone, and bruised ribs. I was lucky. It could have easily been so, so much worse.

The thing that still haunts me about the experience is not the beating itself. Those wounds heal, and the only real reminder I have of that now is the way I still tense up if someone touches my head. The thing I still think about is that there were two other flats on my property, with about fifteen residents between them. We were surrounded by houses. And not one person who didn’t live with me came over, or rang the police. If I’d been home alone, I could have been killed.

Just before Christmas my partner and I went outside around 11pm on a Saturday night for some fresh air, just because it was stifling hot in our apartment. We live in an apartment building in the middle of the Wellington CBD; what we gain in convenience, we lose in the noise of buses and drunk partygoers hollering outside our window in the wee small hours. Across the street, there were two men and a woman, and a lot of shouting. At first we thought it was probably just drunken loudness; it wasn’t until one of the guys began slamming the other into the window behind him that we realised it was nothing of the sort. I rang 111 while my partner grabbed a supermarket security guard, who went over to try and defuse the situation. Plenty of people walked past us both without even glancing over the road.

The Bystander Effect has been widely studied. In a nutshell, the more people who witness something, the less likely it is that any one of them will take action.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot today, because of a link that came up on my Facebook feed. There is a serious trigger warning for domestic violence on this, but if you have the spoons, this series, “Shane and Maggie”, is a series of images by photojournalist Sara Naomi Lewkowicz that depict an incident of domestic violence. In the photographer’s own words:

I had been photographing a couple, Shane and Maggie, since September. I had originally intended the story to center on their struggles trying to make ends meet, as Shane has a lengthy criminal record that has prevented him from obtaining steady employment. One night, Shane and Maggie got into a fight, and Shane began to physically abuse Maggie, slamming her up against walls and choking her in front of her two-year-old daughter, Memphis. He had taken our cellular phones, so I reached into his pocket and steal my phone back when he was distracted. I handed my phone to another adult who was in the house,and instructed them to call the police. I then continued to document the abuse. In that moment, my instincts as a photojournalist kicked in. I knew I had to stay with the story and document it in all of its ugly truth. I have continued to follow Maggie since the abuse, and am producing a multimedia piece as well as a still series.

There has long been discussion about photojournalists in war zones and areas of abject famine; photojournalists who have ended up taking their own lives, due in at least some part to the intense criticism levelled at them for taking images rather than helping. These criticisms are valid, but at the same time, I think I can understand why you would need to learn how to switch off your emotions somewhat if you were constantly faced with the worst of human suffering. I can empathise with that, even if I don’t agree with it.

Sara Naomi Lewkowicz is not in a war zone. She is not facing horrors most of us could hardly imagine and will never experience, day in and day out. She is a photographer who, when faced with a young woman being choked and beaten in front of her two-year-old daughter, did not freeze in fear. She had the presence of mind to steal back her cell phone—and then hand it to someone else to call the police so that she could continue to take photos of the event.

That is a conscious decision.

Can I say how I would have acted or reacted in the same situation? Probably not. Can I sympathise with a woman who is not prepared to throw herself into the middle of a violent situation? Fuck yes, I can. But the concept of someone standing there taking photos while a woman is choked and beaten, of letting a child stand there and watch this take place, makes me sick to my stomach.

If it was anyone but a photojournalist, there would be an uproar. If I witnessed an assault on the street and, instead of intervening or calling the police, whipped out my iPhone and got snap-happy, I would (rightly) be castigated for it. But because these pictures were taken by a photojournalist, instead, it is seen as perfectly acceptable to make a project out of it.

That shit just doesn’t fly with me, sorry.

 

Accountability

This won’t be very coherent, it’s been a fucking long week.

Last night, one of the SlutWalk Facebook pages posted this image [Consent is sexy, bro. You should ask first.] on their wall. Several people commented that they find the message “consent is sexy” to be problematic. Comments included:

• To me, it’s mainly saying, ‘hey you’re sexy when you don’t rape me’. I don’t feel as though ‘not raping’ and ‘sexy’ should be conflated, ever.
• Consent isn’t sexy, consent is something women should be able to take for granted as a baseline dynamic that goes without saying. [...] The only reason it’s being framed as “sexy” is because we live in a rape culture that sexualises dominance and males who are out of control with their “desire”.
• [S]uggesting ‘consent is sexy’ is like saying ‘hey when you ask for consent it’s sexy’. The opposite of asking for consent is rape. [...] it seems to suggest we have to stroke the egos of males and show them how sexy they are when they don’t rape us.

This is the point at which a moderator commented, under the SlutWalk account, “Oh it’s troll Slutwalk night!”

I’m not naming the SlutWalk in question, both because I don’t think it serves any great purpose, and also because they have now deleted the post. I only screencapped up to my first comment, which read:

Uh,I also have significant issues with the “consent is sexy” message. Consent isn’t “sexy”, it’s a basic right and we are all entitled to give or withhold it without repurcussions.

Also, accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with a particular post of “trolling” makes me highly uncomfortable, personally. SlutWalk is no more a monolith than feminism is, and I’d like to think we can have respectful debates and discussions without being shut down — because surely we get enough of that elsewhere?

I want to be really clear here—I’m not trying to be a big meanie tattle-tale about this particular SlutWalk page, or whichever moderator was engaging with us. But I do think it’s really important to be aware of our accountability. Whether it’s as organisers of a large movement, or as feminists, or just as people who don’t want to be assholes, it’s really important to remember that no one is immune to fucking up. And if you really don’t know how you’ve fucked up, it is entirely possible to engage in respectful discussion without automatically defaulting to dismissing the arguments against you.

Because at the end of the day, the fact that you make a concentrated effort not to fuck up, and succeed 99% of the time, that doesn’t actually make it any less offensive that other 1% of the time. And a basic tenet of being a decent human being is holding yourself to the same accountability that you hold others to—recognising when you’ve upset people, intentionally or not, and taking steps to understand and rectify.

It’s not that hard, I promise.

 

Open Letter to media organisations on the reporting of Julianne Kramer’s death

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in complaint of your article on the death of Julianne Kramer, who was killed in a helicopter crash in Otago last night.

As someone who knew Julianne, I am personally disgusted and offended that you have consistently referred to her with her birth name and pronouns. While I am aware that Julianne’s family have requested she be referred to as “Julian”, I am nonetheless surprised that your editors would allow this to supercede Julianne’s rights to be known as her preferred gender. The Associated Press Stylebook has very clear guidelines for reporting on transgender individuals, including the requirement to always use a transgender person’s chosen name and pronouns. Giving the family of a deceased person preference over the self-identification of the individual sets a disturbing precedent for transgender people, many of whom transition without the support and understanding of family members.

[To Stuff] On a related note, I find your addendum at the bottom of the article to be distasteful and dismissive not only of Julianne, but of all transgender people and everyone else who has found the use of her birth pronouns to be offensive. Not only is the AP Stylebook and other guidelines for journalistic standards quite clear that transgender individuals should be referred to as their preferred gender no matter how far through the transitioning process they are, but I have concerns about the accuracy of the statement itself. Julianne’s Commercial Pilot’s Licence identified her as Julianne Kramer; I would be highly surprised if the Civil Aviation Authority issues individuals with licences in a name other than their legal name.

[To other media outlets] The way you have reported Julianne’s death is distasteful and dismissive not only of Julianne, but of all transgender people and everyone else who has found the use of her birth pronouns to be offensive. The AP Stylebook and other guidelines for journalistic standards quite clear that transgender individuals should be referred to as their preferred gender no matter how far through the transitioning process they are. I also have concerns around the legitimacy of the idea that “Julian Kramer” was, in fact, her legal name as opposed to her birth name. Julianne’s Commercial Pilot’s Licence identified her as Julianne Kramer; I would be highly surprised if the Civil Aviation Authority issues individuals with licences in a name other than their legal name.

Sincerely,

me

 

Man’s disbelief that his brother would sexually assault a minor (alternative title: let me do that journalism thing for you, Stuff)

“Justice has been done,” said the brother of a Nelson man who was yesterday found guilty of indecently assaulting his stepdaughter after a second trial.

The Nelson District Court heard how the man stroked her right breast while watching television in the lounge of their Nelson home, and later in her bedroom indecently touched her and kissed her back on December 30, 2009.

The perpetrator has steadfastly denied the charges, saying the indecent assaults did not happen.

After a three-day retrial, a jury of six men and women yesterday reached a unanimous guilty verdict on the charge relating to stroking the girl’s breast and majority verdicts on the two other charges of indecently touching her and kissing her back.

A long-time friend said: “I just can’t believe it. It shows no matter how well or how long you know someone, you can never really know what they might be capable of.”

The perpetrator’s brother said: “This young woman was incredibly brave, not only to report the incident but to go through with not one, but two trials. What an incredibly difficult thing to do after being sexually assaulted by her stepfather, a man who was in a position of trust over her.”

The perpetrator had been found guilty of the same charges after the first trial in May last year.

He was then sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment but did not go to jail as he was released on bail when an appeal was lodged.

At the second trial this week the jury was told it was a retrial, but not why.

It can now be revealed that the Appeal Court quashed his convictions in the first trial and ordered the retrial.

His previous lawyer Jonathan Eaton made the successful appeal but the Appeal Court in its judgment last December suppressed publication of the proceedings and the result until the outcome of the retrial.

The man has been remanded on bail for sentencing on November 13.

Or if you hate yourself, read the actual article on Stuff: Accused’s brother ‘in disbelief’ at verdict. I’ve cut out the twelve lines that were dedicated to the perpetrator’s sob story.

Oh, and special props to Laura Bisham for not once, not twice, not thrice, but four fucking times referring to a man who has now been found guilty twice of sexually assaulting a minor as “the accused”. Thanks so much for that not-at-all-biased-or-victim-blaming language you used, there.

 

Marriage and Civil Unions: New Zealand Statistics for the Woefully Uninformed

As a follow-on to this post, it would seem that a great deal of opponents to the same-sex marriage bill don’t really understand how statistics work. I’d like to think they do and they’re deliberately twisting the numbers to suit their cause, but I feel that would be giving them a little too much credit.

Garth George claimed in his column that 4% of New Zealanders are “homosexual or lesbian”. Let us pretend, for the purposes of this discussion, that this is accurate (my feeling is that the number of queer people in New Zealand is higher, though there have been no measurements of the number of LGBTIQQA people in New Zealand), and let us also pretend that this 4% are strictly gay or lesbian (so only romantically interested in those of the same gender).

And then someone can explain to me why the difference between 0.61% and 0.17% is apparently justification to continue denying human rights to LGBTIQQA people

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2011
Population of New Zealanders 16 years and over: 3,452,100
Population of straight New Zealanders: 3,314,016
Population of gay/lesbian New Zealanders: 138,084
Number of marriages: 20,231
Percentage of marriages per 16+ straight population: 0.61%
Number of same-sex civil unions: 232
Percentage of same-sex civil unions per 16+ gay/lesbian population: 0.17%

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2010
Population of New Zealanders 16 years and over: 3,413,600
Population of straight New Zealanders: 3,277,056
Population of gay/lesbian New Zealanders: 136,544
Number of marriages: 20,900
Percentage of marriages per 16+ straight population: 0.64%
Number of same-sex civil unions: 199
Percentage of same-sex civil unions per 16+ gay/lesbian population: 0.15%

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2009
Population of New Zealanders 16 years and over: 3,364,600
Population of straight New Zealanders: 3,230,016
Population of gay/lesbian New Zealanders: 134,584
Number of marriages: 21,600
Percentage of marriages per 16+ straight population: 0.67%
Number of same-sex civil unions: 255
Percentage of same-sex civil unions per 16+ gay/lesbian population: 0.18%

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2008
Population of New Zealanders 16 years and over: 3,318,300
Population of straight New Zealanders: 3,185,568
Population of gay/lesbian New Zealanders: 132,732
Number of marriages: 21,900
Percentage of marriages per 16+ straight population: 0.69%
Number of same-sex civil unions: 255
Percentage of same-sex civil unions per 16+ gay/lesbian population: 0.19%

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2007
Population of New Zealanders 16 years and over: 3,278,100
Population of straight New Zealanders: 3,146,976
Population of gay/lesbian New Zealanders: 131,124
Number of marriages: 21,500
Percentage of marriages per 16+ straight population: 0.68%
Number of same-sex civil unions: 253
Percentage of same-sex civil unions per 16+ gay/lesbian population: 0.19%

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 2006
Population of New Zealanders 16 years and over: 3,233,000
Population of straight New Zealanders: 3,103,680
Population of gay/lesbian New Zealanders: 129,320
Number of marriages: 21,500
Percentage of marriages per 16+ straight population: 0.69%
Number of same-sex civil unions: 318
Percentage of same-sex civil unions per 16+ gay/lesbian population: 0.25%

 

Yet Another “Opinion” On Same-Sex Marriage

On the Rotorua Daily Post website (which is clearly the pinnacle of journalism) today, Garth George cannot figure out why homosexuals and lesbians (because everyone is either gay or straight) want to be allowed to “marry”.

And no, I’m not putting those scare quotes there. Garth George is.

Garth George can’t seem to comprehend that adopting as an individual, rather than as a couple, is not actually the best option for the rights of the adoptive parents or the rights of the child being adopted.

Garth George states that “by their very nature, homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce, except through IVF treatments or by the use of surrogate fathers or mothers”. He conveniently ignores that, once again, there are people who are neither gay, lesbian, or straight who are in committed long-term relationships. He also ignores the fact that there are plenty of opposite-sex* couples who also cannot reproduce except through IVF treatments or by the use of surrogate mothers or sperm donors (who, FFS, are not “surrogate fathers”), and yet we allow them to get married willy-nilly.

Garth George seems to be under the impression that the reason the nice, normal straighties get hitched—sorry, “cleave to one another”— is to “among other things, have children and to bring them up in a traditional family environment”.

Excuse me while I vomit.

Garth George apparently does not know the meaning of “two freely consenting adults”, considering his now overly-tired slippery slope argument—there is clearly no need to acknowledge that Louisa Wall’s Member’s Bill has specifically updated the schedule that contains the list of forbidden relations to cover non-gender-specific incestuous relations. Apparently, we as a nation are incapable of separating same-sex marriage from incest from polygamy. Apparently all these things are directly comparable.

Garth George would like us all to know that “it is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away when they have never existed in the first place.” I think Garth George should have explained that to the suffragettes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, or to those involved in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s. Because, you see, no one can complain about a lack of rights if we’ve never had them in the first place!

Garth George feels that this “is another step in a decades-long campaign to convince everyone that homosexuals and lesbians are no different from the rest of us and deserve all the rights and privileges known to mankind”, which is actually the first correct thing he’s said in the entire article. The difference is, of course, that Garth George doesn’t believe that “homosexuals and lesbians” actually are no different from the rest of us. Garth George doesn’t believe that the queer community deserve all the rights and privileges that we give to heterosexuals.

Garth George has also apparently never met a homosexual who is light-hearted and carefree. I think I can safely say that I would not be particularly light-hearted or carefree if I were forced to have a conversation with Garth George, as it’s surprisingly difficult to remain light-hearted and carefree when talking with someone who sees you as a lesser human being for no other reason than the fact that you sometimes like to sleep with women.

Garth George refuses to wear the appellation of ‘homophobe’ as he has “no phobias about homosexuality, male or female”. And I agree with him; I don’t like the word homophobe, as I have genuine phobias that are not comparable. Garth George is not a homophobe. He is a bigot with poisonous and vile views, who has far too much investment in denying human rights to strangers and far too much interest in relationships that have nothing to do with him whatsoever.

Garth George doesn’t understand male homosexuality. He understands, though, that “it makes homosexuals different from [him] and the rest of heterosexual humanity”.

If the rest of heterosexual humanity is like Garth George, then I want nothing to do with them.

*I hate this term, but I haven’t yet found a better one. If anyone has any suggestions I’d appreciate them.

ETA: New Zealand statistics for the woefully uninformed.