“I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective…”

Perhaps my favourite Monty Python sketch…

New hate speech ruling in South Africa

I mainly wanted to post about this to give me an excuse to show this picture, which I love. I want t-shirts with this on… now!

The story behind this, via Feministing, is that the South African Equality Court has handed down a ruling labelling the following statement, made by ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, as hate-speech and discrimination against women. This means that, in future, this will not be tolerated without legal ramification.

Here is the infamous quote that started this off:

“When a woman didn’t enjoy it [sex], she leaves early in the morning. Those who had a nice time will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast, and ask for taxi money.”
-ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, speaking to a group of 150 University students last May on why South African President Jacob Zuma’s rape accuser must have enjoyed having sex with him.

As Feministing Lori’s says: “These are the words of a rape apologist. They are the words of someone seeking to shame, embarrass, humiliate, and de-legitimize a woman who dared to take legal action against her alleged rapist- the president of a nation.”

 Here’s a comment from the Sonke Gender Justice Network, a South African organization that supports men and boys to act against domestic and sexual violence:

“In a country where it is estimated that one in three a women is raped, we need to take strong action to counter myths and stereotypes which can lead perpetrators to believe that they can act with impunity, and which can dissuade rape survivors from seeking health care or justice.”

Control a Woman for $13.95 inc GST

Got this through the Melbourne Anarchist Feminists. Pass it on!

Following a fantastic week of International Women’s Day activities, a colleague popped into Borders Melbourne Central to buy a book. Imagine her surprise when she was paying at the counter she noticed the following ‘gift’ for sale. 

“Control A Woman Remote Control“

From the product description: “Tell me about it! Control a woman? Good Luck! ‘No’ just a joke, these remotes are really fun, make her do what you want! Would you like her to stop “Nagging, Moaning, Calm Down”?

“How? Just point the remote at the subject [woman] and push any button on the remote, and then hope for the best.”

“These commands are among a few of the features of this ultra-handy new remote control for the hopeful, the manufacturers make no claims for the performance of this item however….10 points for trying! $13.95 inc GST within Australia.”

She asked the salesman why Borders were selling it, particularly just after International Women’s Day. He shrugged and appeared embarrassed.
 
Some of you may believe that the ‘Control a Woman’ Remote control is intended to be funny. Maybe it’s just me, but this week in particular highlighted the stunning range of statistics relating to domestic violence and gender inequality that continue to prevail here and overseas. I find this “gift” downright distasteful.
 
As a snapshot, around the world, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Among women aged 15-44 years, violence accounts for more death and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic injuries and war put together (World Health Organisation, 2005). It is estimated that, worldwide, one in five women will become a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime. Violence against women during or after armed conflicts has been reported in every international or non-international war-zone. Between 250,000 and 500,000 women were raped during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda; between 20,000 and 50,000 women were raped during the conflict in Bosnia in the early 1990s. In Australia, 38% of women over 15 will experience physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetimes. Several global surveys suggest that half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners. In Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States, 40%-70% of female murder victims were killed by their partners, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In Colombia, one woman is reportedly killed by her partner or former partner every six days. Hundreds of women were abducted, raped and murdered in and around Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, over a 10-year period. And women are most at risk at home and from men they know, usually a family member or spouse.

The idea that woman can or should be ‘controlled’ by their partner is at the root of the global epidemic of violence against women.
If the senior management at Borders want to know more about why control of women by men is not an appropriate subject for a novelty item of this kind, have a look at http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf.

Maybe then they might appreciate why the ‘Control a Woman’ ‘novelty item’ is so offensive and completely inappropriate for an organisation that values its public standing.  We doubt the ‘toy’ manufacturers will – they came up with the idea in the first place.  But Borders should know better.  And by removing the item from their stores today, Borders will significantly impact the commercial value of the item, and this may in turn influence the manufacturers.

As one impressive woman commented to me this week, ‘It will take more than $13.95 to control this woman.’ Damn right. 

Joanna Shaw 

Strategic Partnerships Coordinator

International Women’s Development Agency Inc.
T  +61 3 9650 5574
W www.iwda.org.au

Kevin Rudd wants babies…. lots of babies…

I really thought this was an internet spoof when I read it, but it seems that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in all seriousness, commented that a woman’s desire to complete a PhD’s is just “an excuse that all young women are using to avoid starting families.”

The approximate quote came from researcher Nina Funnell, who spoke to Kevin Rudd after he gave a speech about the ‘crisis’ of Australia’s aging population and the various economic challenges we will face as a result.

Arguments were made about superannuation and the strain on healthcare. But there was a deeper message: young people (women in particular) are failing in their civic duty to reproduce. Apparently, gen Y is to blame for the inverted population pyramid. (Source).

Then, after the speech, came this wonderful sentiment from our glorious leader. Women, of course, have an obligation to have children. Education and a fulfilling work life are all very well, but what about the babieees??

Some people have concluded that Rudd was joking and I wish this were true. It should be a joke. But let me remind you that Rudd has been shown to have a complete absence of humour. Unless it includes ‘ocka’ references to barbies. And that really should never be classified as humour.

On a more serious note, whether it is couched in pseudo-economic language or religious dogma, treating women as though they are only baby incubators is incredibly paternalistic and misogynistic. Everyone knows that leader of the opposition Tony Abbott is a manipulative fundamentalist Christian, who most likely would love to legislate against women’s rights if he ever gets into power. But this is our supposed alternative? Remind me why I live in this country again?

Nina Funnell notes that not many people go on to complete PhD’s, and the majority of those people are men. So either Rudd has a wildy exaggerated view about the amount of people completing their doctorate or he believes that the small proportion of women in academia should, what, get back to the kitchen?

Funnell puts it nicely,

Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don’t? We never label career-driven men as selfish.

Unfortunately, Rudd is articulating yet another embedded patriarchal idea that stipulates that men have more a right to a career and an education than women. Say this to enough people and you are sure to get the response, “but women are more naturally suited to look after children, it’s in their nature to want children.” People never seem to realise how insulting this is to fathers. It takes more than breasts to be a good parent.

People also never seem to get the concept that what is true for one person is not necessarily true for another. Many people find reproducing to be a very fulfilling experience. Some do not. According to Anne Summers’ book The End of Equality, 25% of Australian women will never have children. For some, this will be because of problems with infertility, but for others it will be a choice. And a completely valid choice too.

Whenever I have told older people in my life that I do not wish to have children, I am greeted by condescension. “Just you wait”, I hear, “you’ll change your mind.”

And, to be fair, I might. But I also might not. It is not anyone’s place to assume that a person’s desire to refrain from procreating is a whim. Nor that a life without producing children is somehow less valid than a life with them. Or, in Rudd’s case, to deem it the economic duty of young women to put children above all other desires.

I have one word for you, Mr Rudd. Immigration. We have no need for an increase in fertility rates in an already overpopulated world. Of course a lot of people immigrating to Australia could be from other ethnicities, but surely Saint Rudd, the paragon of anti-racist multiculturalism, could not have a problem with that… (/sarcasm).

Terry Pratchett and voluntary euthanasia

The amazing science fiction and fantasy writer Terry Pratchett was recently invited to give the Richard Dimbleby Lecture in England, which is given each year by an influential public figure. Pratchett, well known for his ferocious wit, sharp tongue and, more recently, for his diagnosis with a rare form of early-onset alzheimer’s disease, chose to speak on the right to die. His speech is powerful – all the more so because he himself was not able to read it, and had to rely on friend Tony Robinson to read it on his behalf.

Pratchett promotes the idea of a euthanasia tribunal, comprised of medical practicioners, legal experts and social workers, which could assess whether a person with an incurable illness is fully able to give consent to choose to die.

Unforunately, you cannot watch Pratchett’s speech in its entirety unless you are in the UK (use BBC iplayer), but you can read and watch most of it in this Guardian article and Youtube video:

Here is one of my favourite passages:

Let us consider me as a test case. As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as ­precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.

  Here are some wonderful quotes from Pratchett’s Discworld series. If you haven’t read these books already, now is the time to start!

“The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it” (Diggers) 

“God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won’t tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.” (Good Omens). 

“Give a man a fire and he’s warm for the day. But set fire to him and he’s warm for the rest of his life” (Discworld). 

 ”For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.”

 ”An education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on” (Hogfather)

“It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone’s fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I’m one of Us. I must be. I’ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We’re always one of Us. It’s Them that do the bad things” (Jingo).

US democracy has a heart attack – Supreme Court removes limits on corporate campaign donations

Just in case you needed to feel positive about the state of true democracy in the West… last week the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes. Nooooooooooooooooooo.

The decision stemmed from the legal battle between conservative non-profit corporation Citizens United and the US Federal Electoral Commission over an anti-Hillary Clinton film, called “Hillary: The Movie,” that the corporation planned to sponsor.

The court’s main rationale for this decision is that to limit corporations’ political spending would be a “classic example of censorship,” as quoted by Justice Anthony Kennedy. It also relies on two legal ideas: that corporations are people and money is speech… which are patently ridiculous when applied to the real world.

The idea that corporations are people (also known as corporate personhood) originated in the 1886 case, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. In response to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a private corporation was a natural person, entitled to the same rights and protections as human beings under the Bill of Rights. (See the wonderful film The Corporation for the juicy details).

But, as Corpwatch succinctly puts it, “Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line.”

The idea of money as speech has been applied extremely selectively in the US legal system – usually when it suits the capitalist system for it to be done so. For example, money-as-speech was ruled to be invalid when the courts limited Hare Krishna leafletters from seeking donations in airports (their form of ‘speech’), labelling their behaviour as ‘disruptive’ and an ‘inconvenience’.  Or as Slate’s David Kairys puts it “In other words, in the court’s view, some people’s money is speech; others’ money is annoying.”

Back to the present day, the Citizens United decision overrules two important precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees, but last week’s decision will be far-reaching – because the decision is made on constitutional grounds it will apply at a federal, state and local level.

It’s worth noting, however, that although last week’s decision is devastating, corporations have been slowly undermining political independence in the US, and worldwide, over the years and more than half of US states, including California, Washington and Virginia, already allow corporations to make independent campaign expenditures. The battle has just become more evident with this decision.

Interestingly Obama has joined civil rights activists in condemning the decision, saying “The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

David Kairys again puts it perfectly: “The court’s invalidation of campaign finance reforms over the last few decades isn’t about censorship or suppressed speakers or viewpoints. At its core, this line of cases is about dominance of the political and electoral system by wealthy people and corporations and about legitimizing a political and electoral system that is unrepresentative, money-driven, corrupt, outmoded, and dysfunctional.”

For more info, check out feministing’s analysis of the ways in which a win for capitalism is often a loss for women, or read Naomi Klein’s wonderful book “No Logo”.

Top 5 Feminist Blogs

Thought I’d make a list of my favourite feminist blogs… so I don’t just hog all these wonderful websites to myself!

1. Feministing (my favourite website of all time)

Young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing provides a platform for us to comment, analyse, influence and connect. This blog is the queen (or should I say, immediately recallable representative) of all feminist blogs. The main page is run by a team of great bloggers and has both US-centric and worldwide feminist news and analysis. The community section of the blog is unique – anyone can post an entry, or comment on someone else’s entry, which creates a wonderful space for debates and support.

2. XY Online

“XY is a website focused on men, masculinities, and gender politics. XY is a space for the exploration of issues of gender and sexuality, the daily issues of men’s and women’s lives, and practical discussion of personal and social change.”

3. Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog

“This blog is an information resource, for both feminists and those questioning feminism, concentrating on typically disruptive questions/assertions which frequently arise in online feminist discussions.”

4. Fugitivus

A very good blog with posts about rape and what men can do to stop rape.

5. Feministe

Feministe is one of the oldest feminist blogs designed by and run by women from the ground up.